How Jesus, and The Bible did affirm, not condemn homosexuality. Gay biblical heroes. David and Jonathan

Contents.

Bible and Homosexuality.

Homosexuality in The Old Testament.

Jesus and his Homosexual Friends.

Another Homosexual Bible Hero, and Conclusion.

Jesus and Homosexuals.

A small addition.

Isaiah 53:3. A most important scripture.

Love, with God's blessing. Deal with it.

Source

Gay scriptural icons.

Destruction of Sodom. Nothing to do with homosexuality.
Destruction of Sodom. Nothing to do with homosexuality.
David and Jonathan. Rather sweet really.
David and Jonathan. Rather sweet really.
Ruth and Naomi. What do you think?
Ruth and Naomi. What do you think?
Jesus with His Homosexual friend.
Jesus with His Homosexual friend.

Bible and Homosexuality.

One of the strangest things about Christians, especially the more Bible reading fraternity, is that the more they devour "The Good Book", the less they seem to understand the real messages contained in it. Stories that are about one thing are usually completely misunderstood. The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices.

Take the subject of homosexuality, and homosexual sex, as written about, and depicted in The Bible. A large amount of ink has been spilled on this subject, and an enormous amount of hot air has been exhaled by various preachers, in efforts to prove that God dishes out an extra bit of "Hellfire" to men who love men, and women who love women. Their spewing on this subject has even managed to become an international scandal recently, when we consider the effect it has had on the polity of some countries in Africa, most especially Uganda.


Homosexuality in The Old Testament.

It is a misrepresentation of Sacred Scripture to say that it condemns homosexual practices. It never does as such. Take the most commonly mentioned one of "the sin of Sodom". It was not homosexuality, but a disregard for the ancient laws of hospitality, and contempt for the poor and needy. The connection with homosexuality wasn’t made until the sixth century AD, and that was just a political thing by a corrupt Byzantine emperor, to do with blackening his opponents. Nothing to do with The Bible.

And what are we to make of the story of David and Jonathan, two fit young men, if ever there were. In 1st and2nd Samuel their story is related in exquisite detail. Plenty of disrobing there, and what about the "love that surpasses the love of women"? Don’t try to fool yourselves that that pair were not, at least bisexual. It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the accounts.

Let us not exclude the "fair sex". Ruth and Naomi, almost undoubtedly lesbians. The vows that they made to each other are the basis of the marriage vows repeated in every Christian church today. Ironic isn’t it that "Mr and Mrs Bigot" used the same vows as a pair of lesbians when they got hitched.

All those "abomination charged" laws in the Book of Leviticus are equally meaningless. They were designed to discourage idolatrous pagan practices as done in the temples of Egypt and Canaan. These included ritual sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. It wasn’t "gay sex" as such that was being condemned, just doing it as part of a pagan worship ritual. Even if the Leviticus rules did say that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, the same punishment was prescribed for children who cheeked their parents, and for people who wore two types of cloth at the same time, or planted two types of seed together in the same field or garden. If you have tulips and daffodils growing alongside each other, you are certainly going to Hell.


Jesus and his Homosexual Friends.


In the New Testament, St Paul's Epistle to The Romans is used to condemn "Gays". But again this was really directed against Temple Rituals, and idolatry, exactly like in The Old Testament. Once again anything he might have had to say about other subjects, like the position of women, are ignored. Just the poor old homosexuals get hammered again, by his false interpreters, and only just to reinforce their own bigoted attitudes. People should really understand The Bible before spouting it. Since St Paul was a Roman citizen, and probably had plenty of Gentile friends, some of them were probably homosexuals. It was rife in his time anyway.

The feelings of Jesus on the subject are best found in the story of the centurion's servant/lover. The roman centurion is constantly held up to us as an example of great faith in Jesus. But the plain fact that he was homosexual is generally ignored. It didn’t bother Jesus Christ. Why should it bother his followers?

Then there is the curious one about the three categories of Eunuch. The term eunuch does not just mean a man without "his bits". It actually means a man without sexual interest in women. Jesus refers to three types of eunuch. One is a eunuch that has been that way from birth. Since most scientific opinion believes in homosexuals being born that way, what Our Lord meant should be pretty obvious. There is also a story in The Acts of the Apostles, in which St Philip baptises a eunuch. That one needs to be thought about as well.


Another Homosexual Bible Hero, and Conclusion.

There are also a lot of less well defined examples of probable homosexuals as heroes in The Bible. What about Joseph? I don’t see any reference to him being married. Perhaps "the coat of many colours" was symbolic of him being gay. It would explain a lot.

Then there was the strange story of Joseph's encounter with Potiphar's wife.

When Joseph was brought to Egypt, he was sold to Potiphar, a married eunuch. Potiphar must not have been satisfying his wife sexually, as she made several passes at Joseph, who manfully resisted her charms. The scorned woman accused him of rape, and he was put in prison. The subtext here is that Joseph and Potiphar were, most probably, both homosexual men. Not what the conventional expect, but most likely the truth.

One other thing. In ancient Canaan a “coat of many colours” was the garb of the Canaan temple male prostitutes. No wonder Joseph’s homophobic brothers attacked him.

Anyway folks, to wrap up. There may be some among you who wish to persist in the notion that homosexuality is an "abomination". But if you are looking to The Bible for evidence to back you up, you are wasting your time, and deluding yourself. The Bible simply oozes homosexual affirmation. But then what else would you expect from A Book that was inspired by an all loving God.


Jesus and Homosexuals.

A small addition.

I feel it is appropriate, in view of all the negative comments that this hub has attracted, and no doubt will attract in the future, to post this video. The prophecy is being fulfilled again in our own day, in the attitude that certain Christians adopt towards God's own homosexual children.

Isaiah 53:3. A most important scripture.

More by this Author


Comments 580 comments

Druid Dude profile image

Druid Dude 5 years ago from West Coast

To know means to have sexual relations with. In the story of Lot, he is told to "Send them out to us, that we might know them" is generally considered to mean just that. I voting you up, not because I agree, but because it is a good hub; well written, concise. You state your position strongly. Peace


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Druid Dude. Thanks for reading, and for your kind comments.

I.m going to do a bit of copying and pasting here to save me typing, then I will give you the link, so you can check it for yourself if you like.

"To Know" occurs 943 time in the Old Testament. Out of 943 only 10 refer to having sexual meaning".

"Rape" is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without the woman's consent (can also be applied to men), effected by force, intimidation, or deception as to the nature of the act. The city showed it deserved destruction, for the vile mob of residents of Sodom, including boys and old men, surrounded Lots house, attempting to rape his angelic guests.

"The Bible tells us that rape of any kind - heterosexual or homosexual - is evil. If rape is part of Sodom's sins, it could be included-but not specified-in the sins mentioned by Isaiah and Ezekiel. But since homosexuality, as distinguished from homosexual rape, is not mentioned as one of Sodom's sins, we have no grounds for concluding that it was a sin in Sodom. Again remember the difference between orientation and practices".

Sin of Sodom

For the Bible often refers back to the story of Sodom and says aright what Sodoms sin was. In Lot's time, homosexual rape was a way of showing oneself to be superior to the victim. The village wanted to prove their superiority to the visitors. In order to get a clear view of this passage, we need to look at the context that it was written in.

"We come to first to Ezekiel 16:48-49 which we read:

"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

The sin of the Sodomites was they refused to take in the needy travelers in Genesis Chapter 19. They were not destroyed because of Homosexual acts like people want to say they did. They were destroyed because they were not helping the poor and needy."

Nowhere does the text mention that they were destroyed of homosexual acts".

http://www.whosoever.org/v4i6/youth.html

Jesus understood the sin of Sodom to be inhospitality.

That is why in Matthew 10: 5-15 he said that the punishment of the people who refused hospitality to his disciples would be worse than that given to Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Emperor Justinian I in the sixth century was the first person to declare that the sin of Sodom was with certainty homosexuality. He did this because he wanted to scapegoat certain political opponents of his as homosexuals. Because in Byzantine society the emperor was considered to be an authority on theology, his meaning took hold. It did not have any earlier currency.


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

I'd sure like a list of scripture books, chapters and verses here alongside each statement so I can read your offerings for myself. It's not to doubt you it's to understand your position, as I'm vaguely familiar with some of the points you make but was taught by a closed mind and I'd like to read from an open mind, that in my opinion would reinforce your points here, thanks 50


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi 50 caliber.

I will publish some more concrete information on this subject in the next few days. In the meantime, If you want to check this one out.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Two-strang...

The videos with both these hubs should give some more details as well.

Thanks for reading.


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

I'll check that out as well as punch the trailer button to catch your further postings, dusty

all ready done....


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

50 Caliber.

Thanks for that. Much appreciated.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Very likely to provide you some sharpening up on your debate skills, Christopher.

"One of the strangest things about christians, especially the more Bible reading fraternity, is that the more they devour "The Good Book", the less they seem to understand the real messages contained in it"

Isn't that the truth!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Wesman. I appreciate your comments.


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 5 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Now you should realize by now that a good pot stirring individual is very likely to be someone I appreciate!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Wesman.

It is true that I like stirring pot.

I used to like smoking it as well in my earlier days.

Cheers!


Petra Vlah profile image

Petra Vlah 5 years ago from Los Angeles

Hello Christopher,

My knowledge of the Bible is limited, but we should all remember that homosexuality was more than accepted in the ancient world and it was made a "sin" only by the Christian faith, while ironically, the Catholic prists are doing it even to children - hipocrisy at its worst.

Some of the finest men I know are homosexsual and I am proud to call them friends.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Petra.

What you say is essentially the truth, although I would not single out priests for particular condemnation. Pedophilia is a problem throughout society. There are plenty of good priests as well.

I would like to turn your last sentence on it's head by saying that,

"some of the finest men, and women, that I know are heterosexual and I am proud to call them friends".

Thanks for dropping by.


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

Heck I slept with a gay dude 2 weeks every fall on hunting trips, good guy, and just blurted it out one day as we were returning to southern California from a hunt. Poor guy thought he might have to walk home. I told him what he did in his private places didn't concern me, and told him if he didn't try to get in my cot with me when camping that I didn't give 2 shits what he did. We hunted together for 4 or 5 more years, then I moved out here. I don't get the big deal? dust


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Cheers Dusty.

It never really was a big deal, just another variation in nature; at least, not until some folks started to make it a big deal, why, I cant ever figure out.


Raycol 5 years ago

While the above article has great style, one can convincingly argue that nearly all it says is wrong. The author’s statement that “The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices” applies to his own article.

While the Bible does accept homosexual orientation in the David and Jonathan story, it also consistently prohibits and criticizes homosexual activity (sex between men) in all situations, not just idolatrous sex. The Bible’s condemnation was mainly based on the ancient idea that it was appalling and totally shameful for a man to be sexually penetrated like a woman is.

However we now realize that the condemnation only applied to the ancient biblical cultures who held this idea, and it does not apply today because of our different view of male and female sexual roles. Sex between men is therefore okay if the participants care for each other and no one is harmed. See the “Gay and Christian” website (www.gaysandslaves.com) for more information on this.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Raycol,

Do you really think that an eternal God, that is, one who has lived for way more than trillions of years, would have changed his mind on something so essential in two thousand years? That would be less than the blink of an eyelid to him. If it is ok for men to have sex together now, then it was ok then. The same rule applies to women.

I will have a look at your website later. thanks for the url.


ruffridyer 5 years ago from Dayton, ohio

I was gonna answer your hub point by point however that would turn my comment into a hub. Therefore that is what I will do, write up a hub on this very subject. It is obvious from your remarks you have not devoured the good book enough to understand what it says.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I look forward to your hub, but I think you will find you are mistaken regarding my reading of The Bible.


peanutroaster profile image

peanutroaster 5 years ago from New England

what is going on in Africa is a tragic extension of the hate speech coming out of the US evangelist movement.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

peanutroaster.

Thanks for reading.

Sadly what you say is true.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

peanutroaster.

perhaps this is one you might like to read.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Holocaust-...


ruffridyer 5 years ago from Dayton, ohio

In your hub you mentioned seeing no reference to joseph being married. Genesis Chap 41 v 45&50 name his wife, Asenath and his son's Ephraim and Manasseh, both of whom become tribes in Isreal. Also he rejected the advances of potipher's wife because it would be a sin against God. The sin of adultry. As for the coat of many colours, the rainbow was not a symbol of the Gay lifestyle until the 1970's. I'm sorry to be harping but Joseph in eygpt is one of my favorite old testiment stories.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi ruffridyer.

Thanks for that correction, which I deserve. But you must admit of the possibility that Joseph married Asenath for dynastic reasons. He wont have been the first, and he certainly wont be the last.

The coat of many colours was something that was worn by male temple prostitutes in Canaan. That is why I associated it with the idea that Joseph might be gay. It has nothing to do with the rainbow. I agree that is a modern symbol.


d.william profile image

d.william 5 years ago from Somewhere in the south

Good hub. Provoking many points of view in the comments.

Your assessment is correct, but it will make no difference to those who view the world with one blind eye. Those who spend their lives judging others will do so no matter how convincing any argument is in opposition to those narrow minded views they possess. Any one with the ability to reach a logical conclusion can certainly understand that a benevolent "Creator" would not, could not, create anything that would be so loathing to it; that is only a human trait.

There is apparently little, if any, understanding of the concepts of a Creator as described in any of the ancient writings that have little to do with reality in the first place. Those 'sacred' texts, from which all this hatred is derived from, were written less than 2,000 years ago. A mere millisecond in terms of eternity, and to base a culture of hatred on those words taken out of context, is beyond my comprehension.

If people want to maintain their ignorance, let them. But they also must realize that those ignorant beliefs belong to them alone, and they have no right to impose them on others. The bible is just an old book of words written by humans for a specific purpose. And that purpose certainly was NOT for the redemption of souls.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

d.william.

Thanks for your supportive comments. I think myself that The Bible is an inspired book, and it does point out a way for the salvation of our souls, but it is not very well understood by it's most fanatical adherents.


d.william profile image

d.william 5 years ago from Somewhere in the south

http://hubpages.com/profile/christopheranton.

If one believes in the bible verbatim, that certainly is their prerogative and i would never fault any one for their beliefs. I do not happen to believe it is anything remotely connected with messages from God. I have done extensive research on the origins of the bible, and it was nothing more than a political tool to reign in the masses and control their lives. I have little, if any, use for any organized religion that chooses to preach hatred, intolerance and bigotry. I do not know of any, other than the ancient religions, that taught spirituality, love and acceptance, but those days are long gone. It is time to step into reality and move toward the future with focus on spirituality and not the false teachings of fear and guilt for the perceived sins of mankind that are man made. There is no one on this planet that can attest to the true nature of our Creator, and i do not speculate based on ancient biased texts.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I think I need to add to my comment, above, that The Bible is not understood by it's detractors either. One thing I am not is a bible literalist. The problem for those who regard The Bible as actual history in it's entirety, is that it is manifestly not so. They are therefore missing out on the true messages conveyed in that Holy Book.

They are also adding fuel to the fire of people who share your equally extreme opposite views, which I feel is a great pity.


loneparentgiggles profile image

loneparentgiggles 5 years ago from GONE

Hi christopher, I did a lot of research into homosexuality after my mother kindly told me that if I were ever lesbian she would cut off all contact in case it 'rubbed off' onto my little sisters. Now, the research I did was scientific, not biblical, but it states that a man being gay is influenced within the first three months of his mothers pregnancy, it occurs because of low amounts of testosterone being passed through to him. Lo testosterone leads to a certain part of the brain being smaller, and therefore being female. Same with women, high amount of testosterone essentially make for a lesbian woman as a certain part of the brain is essentially male, enlargened. As for the bible, I was brought up a Jehovah's witness from birth, so for me I guess you could say that I was brainwashed?... Any mention of anything in the bible, any challenge still leaves me with a lump in my throat... but thankyou ever so much for this interesting hub, it would be interesting to know if you could look at the new testament of the holy scripture that JW's use and still come to the same conclusion. I do know that the romans had a lot of homosexual practises going on. Strong regards and please keep writing your hubs, they make me think and rethink and think again... Take Care, Jo.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Oddly enough Jo, I know a lot more about Witnesses than you would suspect, bercause my closest friend was one until he discovered he was gay, and then had a nervous breakdown over worrying that he was an abomination. He has got past that now, Thank God, and although he is still a strong christian, he has left the witnesses behind. You are right about the "witness bible", but then The New World Translation is notorious for it's deliberate mistranslations deliberately done to back up their weird theological arguments.

Thanks for your scientific input. It goes to prove that if God did have any hand in making us, He intended us to be as we are, regardless of sexuality.


DMz 5 years ago from West Coast

I love God, and hate religion. I would be considered a christian, but I do not preach hatred or judge people. You seem like a good person,and have writtin a thought provoking Hub. Yet I must say, in my humble opinion, you are distorting and "spinning" your examples as much as those you criticize. Just examine your David and Jonathon example.

David and Jonathan, two "fit young men" (so?), "exquisite details" (where?), "plenty of disrobing" (Huh? Where?),"the love that surpasses the love of women" (is gay love the only possible interpretation of that phrase? If so, are you contending that male gay love or sex is superior to that of a man and a woman? Why?). Finally, you write "don't try to fool yourself...that they weren't at least bi-sexual, it's ' pretty obvious'to anyone who reads the accounts.

I've read the passages you reference with no desire to fool myself,and I honestly cannot see anything that makes it pretty obvious that your conclusions are correct. With respect,it's a bit of a stretch to conclude what you find to be so obvious. If there are any facts, not surmisings, that I have overlooked, I'd gladly take another look.

I think many of us choose to see what we want to see. I've been guilty of the same, as are many Christian preachers, atheistic preachers, gay or straight preachers, even Hubpages preachers.

Thanks for an interesting Hub.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi DMz.

Of course in the story of David and Jonathan the Bible doesn't explicity say they were gay, and David did have a wife, but whatever the reason, their story does ooze homoeroticism.

That much is pretty undeniable.


DMz 5 years ago from West Coast

Undeniable? Please point me to the verses that "ooze" homoeroticism.

I'm not attacking you, I'm interested in how you draw your conclusions. Respectfully, my thinking is that one undermines their position when they surmise or add personal opinions to what could be some good points.

Writers lose me when they stray from concrete facts to personal interpretaion and claim it is "obvious", etc. That's one reason I cannot bear to listen to sermons from most christian preachers. In the spirit of good will, I would caution you not to fall into the same error-in reverse.

Again, you strike me as striving to be intellectually honest-note your willingness to stand corrected, responding 'ruffrider': "thanks for that correction, which I deserve." That impressed me, as well as your following comment "but you must admit the possibility...etc". That's more like it, in my humble opinion. Much easier to swallow than "don't fool yourself" or "it's obvious".

Anyway, show me where to look and I'll check it out.

Thank you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi DMz.

Rather than just typing out a lot of verses from the Bible, I will give you the link to this Wikipedia article, and you can look it up for yourself.

It is a balanced article, that gives both points of view.

If you have the time, read it, and then you can make up your own mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan


DMz 5 years ago from West Coast

Hi C.

I wasn't requesting that you type out verses-how tedious-just references e.g. 1Sam.22:11, etc.

Sure, I'll peruse the article, but I was interested in how you drew your conclusions from what verses. That's how your Hub began, by criticizing christians who read the bible but don't understand it.

You write "The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices." Yet, I would submit that you are doing exactly that. To be guilty of writing an article and 'spinning' it according to your own beliefs and opinions is not limited to christian 'churchianity.'As a matter of fact-dare I say it-many Hubbers are guilty of the same. Your Hub examples are not backed up with specifics, which leads me to conclude:

1. You're writing examples which you've been told and accepted without research and comparison, or;

2. You read an article somewhere and paraphrased it (btw, I suspect many Hubbers are guilty of rewriting other authors' articles and then Hubbing them as though it were their own original thoughts),or;

3. We ALL live in a yellow submarine.

My personal conclusion is that most of your biblical examples are not supported by what's written, but are wishful thinking, possibilities, and some real stretches and surmisings, but nothing I've read so far leads me to agree that your conclusions are "obvious" "conclusive."

I am not belittling you in any way; I am as imperfect as any human can be, because I'm only human.And I have been guilty of the same "sin" :)

I'll not wear out my welcome, or belabor the point. Again feel free to respond with concrete facts, and thanks for giving me space to respond to your Hub.

Now I go to check out the Hub that RUFFRYDER (see above) said he would post and see if he delivered.

Best regards,

DMZ


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi there DMZ.

Verses from the first book of Samuel regarding David and Jonathan.

If you dont see what I, and a lot of other people, see there is nothing further that I can say.

18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

20:17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

I hope that meets your requirements.


McCordRM profile image

McCordRM 5 years ago from Texas

Here's my article on religious texts (in general).

http://mccordrm.hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Texts

I completely agree that we have a tendency to take things out of context, and/or misplace the significance of our stories.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi there McCordRM. Thanks for the link. I've read it, and will be putting a comment on it later on.

Welcome to HubPages.


McCordRM profile image

McCordRM 5 years ago from Texas

Excellent, thanks!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

You're welcome.


Dave 5 years ago

Couldn't find much I agreed with, when the "evidence" you provided was taken in context. This article seems to be more about theology and philosophy, than the Bible itself... a clever way to spin a written document toward a more personally favourable context. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say it was pure genius: you've provided a brick wall against any possibly more accurate presentation, providing for the poisoning of the wells and an ex-silencio argument. I commend you for your cunning.

Having said that, I will admit that the love between Jonathan and David in the Bible could easily appear to be homosexual in nature; not to mention that you're right about Sodom and Gomorrha not being destroyed solely for homosexuality itself. But, you've taken the book of Ruth entirely out of context, in so many ways, for just one example in your article. For one thing, why would she produce children with a man, if she were married to a woman? That would be adultery. For another, from the reading of the entire book, it's blatantly obvious that her romantic affections were reserved solely for two men: her former husband; and, later, Boaz. It takes a real confirmation bias to read into the text what obviously isn't there.

Again, all in all, quite a cunning way to present your own case; but, I'm afraid I must chalk your expository method up to the same method used by people who beat their children, and commit acts of violence against people of other races or cultures, simply because they can cherry-pick a piece of a passage, here and there, and read into it what isn't there. Theologizing a passage leads to that kind of error. Speaking where the Bible speaks, and being silent where the Bible is silent, is the only way to remedy this error.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Dave. Thanks for reading. I'm not sure what wells I am supposed to have poisoned. If you mean the wells of scripture, I think I have done rather a good job in extracting the poisons that have been thrown in there by inaccurate homophobic interpretations.

I am glad that you can see the homoeroticism in the story of David and Jonathan. There is hope for you yet.

Regarding Ruth and Naomi. I never hinted that they were married, just that the vows they made to each other are the basis of the vows made in the christian marriage ceremony. Whatever affection Ruth may have felt for both her husbands, pales somewhat when we consider the dept of love between herself and Naomi. I think you will find that the text bears me out.

I was speaking where The Bible speaks. The story of the centurion, and the three categories of eunuch, show that very well.

Comparing my methods to those of childbeaters and racists is peculiarly curious, when I wrote the article in order to defend one of the most unjustly vilified sections in society,(the homosexual).

I can only charitably assume that you are one of those people who always reads without understanding.


ItDoesn'tMatter 5 years ago

I don't know what Bible you're reading; perhaps one written in your own words to suit your life style or belief. Homosexuality is clearly condemned both in the Old AND New Testament. It is simply your wish that the Bible sanction it; but it is not the reality. Even though gay marriage and other gay "rights" are becoming more and more prevalent and condoned, gays are STILL uncomfortable with being who they are and CONTINUE to require validation from every possible source, requiring that churches to which they don’t HAVE to belong to accept their life style rather than joining churches that do. You guys won’t stop until you make the world like unto yourselves. Until you guys get comfortable in your OWN skins, you will continue to feel that what you do in the bedroom is wrong, which, by the way, IS wrong.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

itDoesntMatter.

If you really knew what The Bible actually says, you would be adopting a different attitude.

To read, and understand, an ancient book you need to know a little bit about the context in which it was written; and also have some idea of the original meaning of the actual words.

I think it is a safe bet, from the rot you are spouting, that both those areas of knowledge have passed you by.

How much do you know about the terms of service of officers in the roman army, in the first century?

Do you actually know the correct meaning of the term eunuch?

Do you know what "Ecclesiastes" describes as the sin of Sodom?

Do you know the meaning of the term "arsenokoites"?

Do you even know where it was first used?

Until you can actually honestly answer these questions, do not presume to lecture me on what The Bible says on any subject, because you dont have a clue.

Oh, and bye the way, I dont feel uncomfortable about what I get up to in the bedroom, or sometimes in the kitchen, or even occasionally, when I share a bath with "a friend".

I am quite happy in my sexuality. I hope that you are also in the same blessed situation.


Danny 5 years ago

A very insightful and entertaining article, thank you for writing it, I enjoyed it quite a lot!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thank you Danny. I'm glad you enjoyed reading my article.

I enjoyed writing it.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

Your read of Scripture is simply not at all a natural reading - if you start reading with a premise to defend rather than to merely discover what the text actually states, you can find language, situations, and statements that can be presented to appear to say just about whatever it is you want to defend or promote (to others not actually reading to discover what the text actually says).

In the actual text of Scripture when God refers to those who "Claiming to be wise, they became fools" He tells us the resulting foolishness was to practice "dishonorable passions", and he doesn't leave us to imagine or surmise what He "dishonorable passions" He was speaking of - the text continues "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men".

That is what the actual text states - to assert that "Perhaps 'the coat of many colours' was symbolic of him being gay"?! is stretching so far it is ludicrous. Silly. There is a sound and reasonable purpose for God making humanity male and female and, before any kind of civil order, government, or any manner of institution, establishing marriage as the foundational order to His creation - homosexuality clouds and slanders that purpose.

If you start with creation, with Genesis, and understand and believe what it presents as the truth, you could never conclude that Scripture then proceeds to promote or approve of the practice of homosexuality, any more than it promotes or approves adultery, fornication, divorce, etc.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Mickey Snr.

If you must quote from St Pauls epistle to the romans, you need to include this.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen".

Here it is plain that he is condemning pagan practices, not homosexual sex as such.

There were temple prostitutes of both sexes in pagan temples throughout the roman empire. Straight men used to have sex with male priests as a form of worship. That is what is being condemned.

A homosexual would be forsaking the natural use of his body by having heterosexual sex, as that would be against his nature.

And before you come up with all that creation order spiel about Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve, there is homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. Biologically we are animals. Are you saying that God made a mistake when he created homosexuals? Or, if you prefer, let them evolve.

Perhaps he just decided to really "wind up" a large section of his human creation.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

Your assertion that what Paul was writing to the Romans about was the "There were temple prostitutes of both sexes in pagan temples throughout the roman empire." is not what the full text reveals. Paul, in his letter to the Roman church, sets forth the gospel message of Jesus' accomplished atonement by starting with man's need for an atonement. In the passage we're looking at he's not talking about the current temple practices throughout the empire at all - he's laying out the history of redemption . . . he is starting at the beginning and brining the Romans to understand, not the corruption of their own temple practices, but the corruption of man's very nature "ever since the creation of the world".

Look at what leads up to the "dishonorable passions" Paul is speaking of that is revealed to be "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men". The fuller text shows us he is not talking about current temple corruption, but the ongoing corruption of men's hearts "ever since the creation of the world" . . . look at it, this is what sets up Paul's account of "dishonorable passions" ~

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

The corrupted worship Paul is talking about is not the current circumstances in the Roman world - he's talking about the ancient pagan religions of idol worship. He's establishing the historic evidence for what fallows, namely, his argument that "Therefore you have no excuse, O man" were he proceeds to talk about those under God's law are not guiltless merely because they have God's law, etc, etc.

Paul is not, in this first chapter of Romans, saying that homosexuality is ok, just that the temple worship of the Roman world was corrupted - Paul was saying that man, by nature, is corrupted, that from the beginning his worship has always been an offense to God, and in his condemnation that men are in their very nature corrupt, Paul asserts as examples of our evil "full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful", etc, and includes in his examples of our corruption "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men".

To assert that "A homosexual would be forsaking the natural use of his body by having heterosexual sex, as that would be against his nature" is like asserting that thief must, and so cannot be faulted for, following his natural inclination to steal, that an adulterer would be going against his nature were he to practice fidelity, that a slanderer is only acting according to his nature, etc.

And, how does "homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom" undo the fact that God made man male and female, ordained them to marry, and later condemns homosexuality? I'm not suggesting that because the Bible happens to record the account of Adam & Eve and their union, rather than happening to record some subsequent union between Bill & Fred that this must and can only mean that only male and female union should be accepted - I'm saying that there is a sound and reasonable purpose for God making humanity male and female and, before any kind of civil order, government, or any manner of institution, establishing marriage as the foundational order to His creation - homosexuality clouds and slanders that purpose.

If we don't know or understand that purpose, a purpose being clouded and slandered by homosexual conduct, then we would of course we would find no fault in homosexual conduct and misapprehend the rest of Scripture, that clearly condemns it, imagining that it doesn't at all condemn it . . . and, after all, God is love, etc, etc. The problem is that's all a presuppositional approach to the text and based on biased assumption and not at all seeking to know the actual truth of the text.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

In answer to your question Mickey Snr regarding homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, if you believe in creation, either God made an Almighty Cockup, when he created homosexuals, or he is unjust because he burdened a section of his human creation with a nature that he condemmned. Which is it? Your choice.

Also if you want to cite Bible examples, how do you explain the three categories of eunuch, as cited by Jesus himself?

Why did Jesus cure the centurion's servant/lover? This was an ideal chance for Him to reprove them for their relationship, but He didn't take it.

It appears that Christ has a much more understanding attitude than a lot of those who claim to be his followers.

I am reminded very much of The Pharisees, and their rigid unloving interpretation of "The Law". We all know what Jesus thought about them. How many of them are in Heaven?

Try not to be allied with these people, or you might find yourself on the wrong side, on your last day.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Good for you, to stand up against the powerful bible thumping hypocrites of the world. Personally I have given up on religion. That doesn't mean that I have given up on God, or Yahweh, as I called Him, spirituality, truth, love or wisdom.

I recently came to my own conclusion that the Bible was written by men and for purposes of controlling the masses and promoting an agenda. The bible stories all seem to carry the same God and Goddess themes of ancient mythology, including the life of Jesus. Ironically the manuscripts that have been found in latter times written by other disciples, followers and prophets didn't make the cut because what they talked about didn't fit into what the church wanted the people to believe. None-the-less

I know I will be burned at the stake for this comment but is it possible that Jesus himself was gay? All of the evidence points to it. If we believe the bible and all it says then we are all going to hell. Liars, fornicators, gossipers, drunkards, thieves, etc. etc. Sin is sin, if one believes in sin. People would do well to worry about their own business instead of who another sleeps with. Let God judge people and everyone stay out of Gods business.

If God is a "Just" God, then how on earth could he condemn a human that is born with homosexual orientation? Homosexual nor heterosexuals don't have a choice in what they are attracted to. It is natural to them. Who would choose a life of ridicule? That's pretty unfair of God to not start everyone on a level playing field if he is going to send them to hell for desiring what He Himself gave them.

By the way, it also says that masturbation is wrong too. Too all the obese women that stare me down for having a cigarette as though I've committed a mortal sin, I'll have you know that the bible says that gluttony is a sin too. So keep shoving those pies down your throat.

I'm sorry, but dolly do gooders who secretly have their own vices anger me to the point of madness. Thank you for an excellent hub.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Lisa.

I think I am a pretty conventional religionist, except on the gay issue. I am pretty sure that Jesus was asexual. I doubt that sex figured at all in His existence.

Odd that you should mention smoking. I once got approachrd by a man on the street, who told me that, "I could not be a friend of Jesus" if I smoked. I didn't want to tell him that I was gay as well as being a friend of Jesus. That might have been too much for him to contemplate.

The kind of people you mention leave me fuming as well.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Of course Jesus was asexual or maybe he was capable of loving all. You can love someone as a partner love and just not practice the sexual act of that love. He loved Mary Magdaline (spelling)? and they never had sex, although many claimed they married and had children. Jesus claimed to have loved men, the names in particular, I cannot remember. Love is a fusion and the act of coming together in intercourse is a manifestation of that fusion. There is nothing dirty about it unless we make it dirty. Jesus was married to the church, which embodied male and female. This, however, was on a spiritual level, I believe. Your hub has inspired food for thought and that is what is important. Thank you so much.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

I don't know why I keep coming back to this hub. I suppose it is because I am going thru so much religious turmoil in my soul. I look up to you and maybe I am looking for answers. I don't trust very many in matters of God as I cannot put faith in what is said by hypocrites and self promoters for personal wealth or prestige. I went to my bible studies for 30 years 3 times a week and was a diligent student and I love my creator more than anyone could know. It bothers me that my father would send me to hell for what he put in me to feel. Until I know for sure what is truth, I have to live by the truth that I know in my heart and that is, Love thy neighbor as thyself. I practice this, therefore, I cannot condemn any man or I condemn myself. Also I have faith that God knows the hearts and minds of men and is capable. He doesn't need for me to be his judge. We are all sinners, only to show we need a saviour. None of us are worthy. Love to you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks again Lisa.

Food for thought is the most important food that we can eat. Oh! The spelling was Mary Magdalene.(I think.)


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Lisa.

God will only let people go to Hell, who reject him. If you try your best to show love to others, as I feel sure you do, that is all that is required.

See you up there in Heaven, but not for a while yet, hopefully.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

Your arguments demonstrate an impressive level of intellectual dishonesty in your wild assumptions regarding Joseph, Potipher, and virtually every example you have provided.

You make enormous assumptions regarding Jesus and Paul's gay friends whom you invent and then claim receive no rebuke. I could just as easily claim that in the jewish culture that homosexuality was frowned upon and since Jesus doesn't correct that understanding, therefore he disapproved of homosexuality. It would be a presumtous argument, but no less so than any of yours.

The way you completely ignore the Old Testament command to "not lie with another man as one does with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22) is particularly foolish. While we may not handle sodomy the same way today (stoning or execution) the burden is on you to explain why God's moral disapproval of that activity is different today.

If God felt that these activities were immoral then, why would He change his mind now? If committed, marriage partnerships can be had between same-sex individuals why in Genesis does God not include them? If procreation and a stable foundation for parenting is a primary goal of marriage (and I believe it is) how do homosexuals fit into that equation since natural laws prevent them from having children.

You pretend to promote an "all-loving God" but in reality you condone practices that bring brokenness and separation from His love. Better to have a millstone tied around your neck than to preach such foolishness.

Or at least do it with a grain of competency.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Ian.

Welcome to my parlour.

It is strange that someone can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, when that same person is apparently incapable of remembering what they have just read before they make comment.

I refer of course to your assertion that I completely ignored Leviticus.

I am posting this excerpt from the above article to refresh your memory.

"All those "abomination charged" laws in the Book of Leviticus are equally meaningless. They were designed to discourage idolatarous pagan practices as done in the temples of Egypt and Canaan. These included ritual sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. It wasn't "gay sex" as such that was being condemned, just doing it as part of a pagan worship ritual. Even if the Leviticus rules did say that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, the same punishment was prescribed for children who cheeked their parents, and for people who wore two types of cloth at the same time, or planted two types of seed together in the same field or garden. If you have tulips and daffodils growing alongside each other, you are certainly going to Hell".

I suggest that you further look to "the beam" of incompetence in your own eye, before making reference to "the mote" of incompetence in mine.

You are exactly the type of person, about whom I wrote in the first paragraph. I suspect that you "devour" your Bible, but for all the understanding you glean from it, you might as well be reading a long roll of toilet paper.

Please remember that the people most condemned by Our Lord were the pharisees, i.e those who constantly stood on "the moral high ground", and castigated those who they considered less worthy than them.

They, like you, probably thought they had a great insight into the Divine mind.

Where are they now? Does your competency inform you what their fate may have been?

Are you yearning to join them? Your mindset certainly suggests that you would be comfortable in their company.

Finally. I have to thank you for inspiring an edit to this hub. There is a new picture at the top of the page.

I strongly suggest that you download it, and give it pride of place over your mantlepiece.

It just might save your soul.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

Your assertion that every instance in the Bible that strongly urges against engaging in homosexual sex is to be applied only in instances of promiscuous activity at shrines is a tremendous and dangerous leap in logic.

Does it say, "stay away from the temples and sex with prostitutes" or does it say, "thou shalt not lie with a man like one does with a woman."

Under your interpretation of that passage that would mean that having sex with a woman at a shrine is perfectly okay. The author is clearly indicating that sex with another man is morally wrong.

Jesus has given us a new commission and it clearly doesn't include stoning sinners however the burden is on YOU to demonstrate why something that God considered morally evil for Israel was not, in fact, morally evil. Your listing of the punishments the Israelites were supposed to mete out on sinners are a red herring to the real issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

Should we punish, condemn or ostracize homosexuals? Of course not. But encouraging them that their behavior is okay is to err in the opposite direction.

As far as my soul, I'll entrust it into the hands of Christ's mercy rather than a poorly done jpeg.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

I also note that your two men have wedding rings. Are we to assume that they are married to each other or that they are cheating on their spouses?


Oel 5 years ago

I feel very sorry 4 ur lost soul.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

If the command to "not lie with a man as one would with a woman" is meant to refer to having sex with shrine prostitutes...then it would follow that it is permissible to have sex with women at the shrines.

Your arguments regarding our prescriptions of justice for sins are irrelevant. Christ gave us a commission to love and to advance the Kingdom of Heaven against satan, not to condemn or kill sinners. However, we are clearly given authority and power to overcome sin.

The burden then, is on you to demonstrate why God called homosexual sex an abomination if He actually approved of it.

As for your suggestion, I'll entrust my soul into the hands of Christ rather than your poorly done jpeg.


jonnycomelately 5 years ago

"ItDoesn'tMatter," you make many assumptions about what a homosexual person does "in the bedroom." You don't know!! You only make these assumptions on the basis of what your hear talked about by other members of your club, whichever church you belong to.

Anyway, what ever two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of yours, or my, business. Provided there is no undue coercion, force, cruelty, dangerous practice without the other partner's permission, it's their business. If there IS any of the forgoing, then its Societies duty to sort it out, and there are laws in place to protect the individual from it.

There are places in the world still where a person caught engaging in any homosexual practice is quickly, summarily, strung up! Or beheaded! His family will suffer also. Such a guy is not able to change his basic nature. Being homosexually inclined is not something you choose or not choose, like a garment you wear. It's just a natural part of your being. And the only chance of being loved, cherished, by another person is if that person is of the same gender.

Your God is Love, "ItDoesn'tMatter." To you, this fact should matter.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Ian, I have suffered all my life from the attitudes of people like yourself.

I am just happy now to say that I dont really care, about how people percieve me any more.

There are plenty of more vulnreable victims for your bigotry.

Go exercise it on them.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

I'm sorry if you felt condemned by my comments, that was definitely not my intent. I believe it's clear that God hates the sin of homosexuality and wants to rescue those trapped in it. Every homosexual has my compassion which I believe must come with a Godly understanding of the issue.

Clearly you don't actually want to engage in debate on the issue but I hope in the future you can hear truth and not be offended. I also hope that you won't invite the offending parties to attack "more vulnerable victims" as that hardly seems like the Christ-like approach that a pastor/shepherd should take.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

jonnycomelately.

Thanks for your supportive and uplifting comments, with which I completely agree.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I,m not a pastor or a shepherd, and I thought I was debating the issue Ian.

I do just want to live my own life. In my opinion, the sexuality of a person is the last thing about them that we should be bothered about as christians. Especially when we look about us, and see the real problems that we should be trying to adress in the world. I feel that Jesus would be in agreement with me in this.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

In a debate, one usually responds to the arguments by the opponent or risk defeat.

As for Jesus' concerns, he wants all of us and isn't going to settle for partial victory anywhere.

Even if our sexuality was a minor problem, which I don't think you are actually trying to concede, it would still be a big deal to our perfect father.

Your confidence that Jesus would agree with you doesn't seem to be based in any logic or scripture but merely your own desires.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

How dare these bullies in the comment section judge anyone. You perpetuate hate and belittle Gods creatures. Shame on you. You make people not want to be Christians. You do a disservice to God and it is you that Jesus condemned. Jesus nor God needs you as His spokesperson. Learn what it means to be a real Christian, and don't you ever insult my friend again. You don't have to answer to me or Christopheranton but there is one you will have to answer to and I would never want to be in your shoes.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

I am just outraged at the comments by Ian Boyd. He has caused me to look up many a scripture tonight. My poor writing partner had to engage in this as my eyesight is poor with small print. Ian is clearly a closet gay, and is obsessed with it. As a statehouse reporter, I know for a fact that the Senators and House reps who are always voting against gay rights are the very ones who are gay. I could mention names but I wont. They are always diabolically opposed to gay rights. Why? For fear of being found out. And why the fear? Because of nut cases like Ian Boyd. It is a sin to live a lie. And one point to be made is, Jesus fulfilled the law. There were many of them. 619. The Jews had to hang them from their clothing just to remember all of them. It was a burden. Jesus came to release them from this burden. And by the way, If you weren't a Jew, It didn't even apply to you. The Gentiles were a law unto themselves. Ian, I'll bet you would have been one of the Pharisees to condemn Jesus when he was plucking grain on the Sabbath. It was against Hebrew law, but they (as well as you) had no understanding. In fact you remind me of the Pharisees who claimed to be so righteous and were instructed in the law and always quick to judge. But what did Jesus say about them? Luke 11:39

And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. He said a whole lot more about them but what good would it do for me to quote scriptures?

There is a long list of human characteristics that was made to show that none of us are worthy and left without a saviour we are all doomed. Fornication (having sex without being married) adultery (sex with someone other than your spouse) masturbation was wrong (it is better for your seed to fall on the belly of a whore than on the ground), or something to that affect, liars, thieves, murderers, backbiters, gossipers, gluttony,(yes, the big fat dolly do gooder sitting in church who has never done anything wrong is going to hell for shoving too many cakes and pies down her throat), coveting, drunkards, boasters, proud, etc. etc.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

Ian said, If God felt that these activities were immoral then, why would He change his mind now? If committed, marriage partnerships can be had between same-sex individuals why in Genesis does God not include them? If procreation and a stable foundation for parenting is a primary goal of marriage (and I believe it is) how do homosexuals fit into that equation since natural laws prevent them from having children.

All I can say to this ridiculous statement is, Adam and Eve surely screwed up as parents. They produced Cain, who killed his brother. I think Children Services would have a problem with that. I'm sure Eve would have been declared a horrible mother for producing a murderer. So much for the perfect family, huh? I don't know about you Ian, but I look around me and see women having children just because they can spread their legs. Many of them should have been sterilized for the sake of the suffering children. Is it possible that God had Adam and Steve take over the children that dumb asses with a womb but no caring instincts, failed? Get a grip. Before you go and condemn, thinking marriage between male and female is oh so righteous because they are good at hiding, (husband watches porn every night and whacks off, because the wife doesn't want to have sex with a drunken slob who is a minute man, or husband picks up prostitutes because he likes to do freaky things that his wife wont indulge in, or the oh so common husband picking up a male prostitute because he is really gay, but is afraid of telling anyone because of people like you that condemn him to hell. Yes, the perfect marriage. While we have a gay couple next door who is looked down upon, yet they are truly committed to each other and wouldn't dare think of straying because they are honest and deeply care for one another. They wish to God they could have a child to share in their love, but no, that right is only given to the wombs who wouldn't know love if it slapped them in the face. A child grants them security. And that is why the world is so fucked up. Nobody wants to look at themselves. It is so much easier to condemn our neighbor.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Ian.

You cannot really say that you are against gaybashing, and the awful things that are happening in Africa and Iran; or the suicides that happen among young gays all over the world, when it is the low level prejudice that you peddle that fosters these problems. Examine your concience. I have done so with mine. It is an enlightening experience.

lisadpreston.

I cannot really top what you have just posted, so I wont try.

Thanks for all your support. I really do appreciate it, and you are a very good friend.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

Well, I'm willing to continue to comment on the issue if you guys want to maintain the discussion but I'd like to make a point first:

All I've said is that homosexual sex is a sin and that Christopher's arguments are foolish and specious.

I believe that husbands looking at porn is a sin, I believe that husbands cheating on wives is a sin, I believe that condemning homosexuals and harassing them is a sin, and I certainly believe that Jesus weeps over violence against homosexuals and suicides. All of this brings separation from the Kingdom of Heaven and all of this needs to be washed in the blood of Christ.

I've been accused of condemning and propagating hatred but of the following charges: closet homosexuality and living a lie, Pharisee-ism, victimization, and bigotry

All have been leveled against me, and on what basis? That I believe homosexuality is a sin? That I think Christopher's arguments are silly?

I suspect that both of you (lisa and Christopher) have some deep hurt from actions by the church in the past and I'm deeply sorry if such is the case.

Lisa: I think you made one actual argument against my point that the Leviticus passage that I believe demonstrates that God believes homosexual sex is a sin, which was that Jesus fulfilled the law and that it was only for Jews anyways, therefore its moral prescriptions need not be followed.

I don't think that's an interpretation that will hold much water. In many cases, Jesus upheld STRICTER morals than did the Mosaic law. He tells us that everyday lust is akin to marital unfaithfulness of the heart, he tells us that divorce for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness is wrong, he said "be perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect."

Obviously we can't actually do that, but what he was instilling was that obedience to the will of God is the goal, not adherence to the law. His blood and Holy Spirit served the purpose of making our faithful response to the Lord meaningful and powerful, not excusing us to live however we want and ignore God's will to advance Heaven on earth and bring restoration, life abundant, and fullness of joy to every part of our world.

My point again is that the scripture indicates that God believed homosexual sex to be an evil action. What reason do we have for believing that he changed his mind?

And whatever your experience may say, please believe that just because I disagree with you guys doesn't mean I hate you. That your experience with the church has taught you that lesson is not lost on me and I hope to do whatever I can to demonstrate that correction on the issue can be done without condemnation or lack of love.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Ian.

I cannot speak for lisadpreston, but I can for myself. I dont have any unhappy memories, or bad experiences from the church in my past. I am now, as I have always been, a proud catholic. I just happen to disagree with them on their teaching about homosexuality.

I am also happy to see that there are some signs of a change coming in the teaching on that issue. I just hope and pray that it comes soon.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Ian, Thank you for your profound dialog. First, I love God. I have no qualms or hurtful experiences with any church. Until my husband died, I went to my bible classes 3 times a week and then on Sunday for 30 years. When I was 4 years old, I would get up on Sunday, dress myself, and walk to church, while my mother lay in bed, probably hungover. I remember the big people saying, "who is this child?" "What do we do with her?" "Where is her mother?" They put me in a Sunday School class in the basement, and to this day, I love the smell of basement churches. God was never mentioned in my family. But my aunt tells me that ever since I could talk, I would ask her where God was and how do I get back to him. She said that I loved God so much that she was afraid to tell me that I would have to die to get back to God, because she knew I would commit suicide just to be with Him. That frightened her. Funny, how that I could love God so much and live such a sinful life. Of which, I have no regrets because I learned valuable lessons that brought me closer to my eternal Father. I am thankful for my flaws and all of the hell I went through. How is Gold purified? By putting it in the fire.

I don't pretend to understand everything. I'm not so sure that I want to. I have always thought of myself as pretty stupid, only finishing the 10th grade of high school. One thing I do know about is human nature. Yes, there are scriptures that oppose homosexuality. But I have to ask God, "Why then? Why,if you are a just God, would you put it in the hearts of men and women to be born with a feeling of love for the same sex?" It is as natural to them as it is for heterosexuals. They are not deviant people. They love you, worship you, they are not bad people. How could you put something in a human, from birth, that is supposed to be evil, and condemn them for it? How can you send someone to hell for shoving too many pies down their throat? How can you send a woman to hell for divorcing a man that beats her and her children everyday? None of this makes sense to me.

Until the answers are revealed to me, I have to be true to my heart. I know I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me. However, I will come up short every time, simply because I am in the flesh. We are all little children in Gods eyes, and little children disappoint their parents all the time, but the parent still loves the child, regardless. It is not for you or I to judge anyone. Let God be the judge. With all of your Knowledge and wisdom, get understanding. If you don't have love, because that is what the whole law was based upon, you have nothing. I am free, I trust God with my whole heart and soul. He doesn't need for me to be His spokesperson. If you truly love God, Ian, and I believe that you do, then let go of your control, and trust that God knows what He is doing and knows the hearts and minds of the people He created. It is hard to just focus on ourselves and not try to convert the world to our carnal way of thinking. I get that. But His ways are so much higher than our ways. I tried to use the example of Jesus plucking corn on the Sabbath. That was atrocious to the Hebrew law and way of thinking. But His ways are so much higher than our ways. We don't fully understand, therefore, it is not our right to judge or condemn what God created or put in a mans heart. We should obey His commandment and love one another, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Period. If we could do that, and work on our own hearts, we would do well. In law, it appears to be black and white, however, there are always mitigating factors. And, if you have a good attorney, which I do, Jesus, who is the mediator, you are likely to have a good outcome. There is no such thing as a big sin or a little sin. In God's eyes they are all felonies. None of us are worthy. If you think it, you did it. So, we all need not condemn one another, but love one another, and let God be the father that He is. He doesn't need your help, Ian, nor does He need mine. Love to both you and Christopheranton.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Very well put Lisadpreston. I think I can say Amen to all you have written here. Thank you.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

Well suffice to say that I don't believe that everything we find about ourselves and how the world operates is what God intended and I'm inclined to trust the Scriptures over my own heart or feelings. Generally when I have felt that something in the Bible is distasteful or seems wrong I later find that I've either misunderstood it, missed context, or been completely wrong.

So I'm going to trust the Word.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

"So I'm going to trust the Word".

That is something that I have always tried to do myself.

Thanks for your contribution Ian.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Okay Ian, You know I am a woman and I'm always going to try and have the last word! That was a joke, so lighten up.

The "WORD" says, and by the way, I am a little angry that I am trying to remember so many scriptures due to my concordance and Bibles being locked away from me when the bank stole my house, and am left with a Gideon Bible that my writing partner and I took from a motel we stayed in on our journey to cover an execution. I was told that the Gideons want you to take the Bible. I hope I was told right. I wish they would make the print bigger. Here I go digressing.

2Corinthians 6

1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

2Peter3

15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I TOO,ONLY FOLLOW THE WORD, WHICH IS: John1:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Again, love to you both and Ian, I did apologize on your hub for my rude comment. I am truly sorry and I mean that.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Beautiful words lisadpreston. Reading them was like saying a morning prayer.


Ian Boyd profile image

Ian Boyd 5 years ago

One more quick thought:

Greg Boyd has an interesting point on the matter here: http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/christians-social-issue...

He points out that Christians tend to treat homosexuality differently than they would other sins and worries that this is because a Christian might condemn a homosexual without feeling like a hypocrite whereas perhaps he couldn't on an issue like helping the poor, marital faithfulness, etc. Food for thought.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Ian.

There may be food for thought in what the article says about the attitude of some christians towards homosexuality, but apart from that I reject wholly that argument. He is still insisting that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is sinful, and that will always be rot to me, and, I believe, to God as well.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Christopheranton dear, I think people equate homosexuality with promiscuity and that is why they are so judgmental. I'm just guessing and grasping at straws trying to understand the concern and hatred. We know that homosexuals, now that they don't have to hide so much, are not loosy goosy, any more than heterosexuals. I'm curious as to what part of homosexuality it is that the condemners don't approve of. Is it the "being in love with the same sex part" or the way they have sex? Heterosexuals practice anal and oral sex with each other more often than not and nobody is spying in their bedroom, at least I don't think so. I think if we look to science and brain chemistry, we can see why some men feel more feminine and some women feel more masculine. Men and women both have male and female parts but they are less dominant in the makeup, however, hormones can be more dominant even if the parts don't match. I don't think God makes mistakes and I think He approves of everything that He made. If a person has a clear conscience in what they do, then no person can say it is wrong or right. We live in different times now than the scriptures were written. If we went around sacrificing animals as they did back then during the Leviticus writings, we would be jailed and scorned. It would be an abomination to do that in this age. I love shrimp and pork, but I would be considered unclean if I ate that during Moses's time. I try not to eat meat now, due to my love for animals, but if I slip, I doubt that God will send me to hell for it. But if my conscience condemn me, well, I'm doomed. Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, we need not anymore ask our neighbor what is right. The Holy Spirit dwells within us to guide us, therefore, if our conscience does not condemn us, what right does another person have to condemn me? I want to meet the human that has a heaven or hell to put me in. Other than a prison warden and even that is temporary.

I am happy that Ian Boyd, and others are so concerned about God's word and honestly I have nothing but love for them, even though I am human and get angry. I pray they will come to understanding and obey God's commandment to love thy neighbor and work out their own soul salvation as you and I have to do. I have enough of a hard time keeping myself on the right track and resisting evil to worry about what the next person is doing in the bedroom. If two consenting adults are responsible with their actions and are not harming anyone, why should I care? That includes all sexuality, even prostitution. LOL. By the way, most of the gay couples that I know, and there are many, are so monogamous, straight laced, and perfect acting, that I can hardly bare to be around them. Now there are a few, that are single and like to have a good time but even they tread on the border of stick in the mud. And then I have Ben, who is a story and a half. remind me to tell you in private how that we started out as enemies, because he said my dog Mini was ugly to my son as they were walking the dogs. Mini is far from ugly, although gay, well bisexual. But anyhow, Ben was hanging with his friends after labor day wearing plaid shorts, a white jacket with fake fur and gawd awful shoes, I walked up to him and told him I was calling the fashion police. I informed him that is is not proper to wear white after labor day and he agreed with tons of laughter. We became the best of friends and he was so cute that he decided to let me try and make him Miss gay USA. He practiced for hours in my basement walking in my hooker boots (just terminology) but while I was going cross country with a native American friend of mine, Ben went to jail. I haven't seen him since. He is going to be a key character in the soap opera. And once again, I have wondered off of subject. But have you thought about the soap proposal any?

I hope all is well and that you are getting organized in your new home. It must be so exciting and I am so happy for you. I am thinking of moving again, myself. Oh how I dread the packing though. Peace, love and hugs to you my friend.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi lisadpreston.

I think it is the fear of minorities that drives the prejudice against homosexuals. The same can be said about gypsies, or black people or jews. A lot of the gay people share the same revulsion at their own nature as some straights do, and a large many more are afraid of being found out as gay.

That is why the openly gay people are only the tip of a very big iceberg. For every gay person who is "out and proud" there are about ten who are hiding, either because they are married, or afraid of famoly disaproval.

That is one reason why "cruising grounds" are so popular. They bring sexual satisfaction, and anonmity.

I think God allowed homosexuality, because it was an evolutionary imperative. Homosexuals in nature were probably needed, to limit population growth, and to have males to defend the tribe without prejudice.

That is my feeling on it anyway. Study of animal society might confirm or deny this idea.

I think Ian and co put far too much emphasis on sexual sin. It is their addiction to "creation order theology that causes that. If they realised that Genesis is an allegory, and started looking at the world as it really is, they would feel differently.

I still think that the idea of a gay soap is a good one. I will e mail you in the next day or so about it, and then we can discuss ideas.

Hugs to you, and thanks for all your valuable help and support.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

I've backed away from the back-and-forth of these comments some weeks ago, but I still see updates on the discussion from time-to-time. I left this particular consideration of the issue because the handling of the matter seemed nearly cartoonish to me - rather than actually hearing some one who holds a view that is not your own and honestly considering that other perspective, routine and lame clichéd posturing seemed to be the course. For me, this is not about rigid old fashioned people fearful of change and anything different vs open-hearted brave souls who just want to be accepted for who they are - aside from all the personal matters and social agendas there is an issue here that should be recognized, received, and practiced either one way or the other . . . there is a right and a wrong here regardless of how any of us feel about it.

If it is right and good for people to enjoy same sex relationships then it's terribly wrong for others to hinder then - if it's wrong and bad for people to enjoy same sex relationships then it's wrong for people to assert that it's right and good and to condemn others for opposing it's acceptance. All the aggressive hostility and defensive posturing doesn't examine the real issue at all.

lisadpreston ~ certainly there are many who are judgmental of others and I imagine some who do indeed "equate homosexuality with promiscuity" . . . and . . .

christopheranton ~ certainly there are some people who are uncomfortable, and so hostile, toward homosexuals because of a "fear of minorities" . . .

. . . but certainly there are many people supportive of homosexuality who are just as judgmental and who equate any opposition to homosexuality with an ill-informed religiosity that fears any change - and certainly there are many people supportive of homosexuality who are just as prejudice against anyone counted to be an orthodox Christian or political conservative. The point being, just as there are many supportive of homosexuality who are thoughtful people, not on any band-wagon agenda, who own a well considered philosophic premise for advancing that same sex relationships are right and good, there are likewise many who oppose homosexuality who are thoughtful people, not given to knee-jerk reactionism, who own a well considered philosophic premise for advancing that same sex relationships are wrong and bad.

Do you oppose right-wing Baptists simply because you are prejudice against right-wing Baptists, or do you have well conceived and sound arguments against the ideas they advance? Many who count same sex relationships to be wrong and bad are not prejudice against homosexuals or fearful of minorities and change, or judgmental. christopheranton, you relate the current homosexual issue with the race issue; I grew-up in an area and at a time when I was bused to school in an effort toward integration, the era of 'White-flight'. Homes in a Black neighborhood were far cheaper than homes in a White neighborhood, which meant that if your White neighbor in your White neighborhood sold his house to a Black family the price you could get for your own house would plummet.

I saw people, who were not racist, struggle with not wanting to loose the life-savings they had in a home they invested in and took great care of and not wanting to treat anyone unfairly . . . I'm sure others, not dealing with the concerns these people had, easily just saw them as prejudiced.

Now, there are two different ideas before us with your hub; one is simply the homosexual issue, is it right or wrong and can people hold one view or the other legitimately without the assumption and charge of being judgmental & prejudiced - but the other, of course, is your assertion that the Bible and Jesus, etc, do not condemn same sex relationships but in fact champion same sex relationships.

Unfortunately what happens is when people make the very reasonable and demonstrable argument that, whatever the truth may be about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality might be, the text of Scripture is clear that homosexuality (like adultery, pride, gossip, etc) is condemned by the God of Abraham, Jesus of Nazareth. You can, of course, reject God and His word and you can call 'right' what He declares is 'wrong', but you can't reasonably say that the text doesn't say what it observably says. And the resulting retreat to the notion that those who disagree with you hate homosexuals, are bashing, are prejudiced, are judgmental, fear minorities, etc, is a ludicrous absurdity to watch.

I don't at all even a little hate homosexuals, I'm not bashing, I'm not prejudiced, I'm not judgmental, I don't fear minorities, etc - but it's clear that your argument that the Bible affirms homosexuality is forced and far more whimsy than any manner of scholarship. I honestly hope that doesn't sound as unkind or harsh as it sort of seems to sound to me, it's not my intention at all to practice any manner of belligerence to you - but your argument is like if the Klan would assert they are actually trying to help Blacks . . . the facts are all simply screaming in exactly the opposite direction.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Now these were excellent points. I like the population control theory as it makes so much sense. God only let strong people be minorities. Be grateful for His love and respect. I know that you are.

I have learned so much from the dialog in this hub and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions. I have had to do a lot of thinking and scriptural thinking which was good for me. I have learned how others think, which I had not ever encountered before and seem so dark ages to me. I truly learn from you and your fearless topics in the hubs you write. You are courageous christopheranton and I admire you, adore you, and look up to you. I am so glad that I found you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Mickey Sr.

I,m not goint to even try to answer all the points you are making, because this discussion is going round in so many circles, it is beginning to resemble a spring.

I am not qualified to comment on the race issue, as I was reared in Ireland during the fifties and sixties. There was no race issue there at the time. Prejudice against anyone based on the colour of their skin, or their sexual orientation is wrongheaded. This includes calling something sinful, when it is only a person acting out their God given nature. I exclude those whose actions do harm to others, or are cruel to animals, i.e pedophiles, rapists, or those who engage in bestiality.

The logic of a loving God is that He should treat all people equally, and not " move the goalposts" for those of a minority sexual persuasion. If that is what He has done, He can not be a loving God. I believe He has not done that. I also remain convinced that careful study of scripture, taking in the context in which it was written, and understanding of the original meaning of the words, will bear me out. There really is little else I can say.

Just let people live their lives unmolested. It's best.

I dont condemn "straights", or tell them that their sexual habits are sinful. They are unfathomable to me, but Hey! Live and let live. That is my motto.

I will only say this about Right Wing Baptists in The United States. Some of them are responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder in Africa. That is not a very Godly way to operate.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

lisadpreston.

God bless you and thank you for the great comments you have been putting on this hub. You really are a great friend and a lovely lady.

I'm glad you found me as well.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ "I will only say this about Right Wing Baptists in The United States. Some of them are responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder . . ."

If some of them are and some of them are not, and if some Presbyterians and some Muslims and Asians and homosexuals and brown-eyed, etc, people are responsible for some manner of wickedness while some Presbyterians and Muslims and Asians and homosexuals and brown-eyed, etc, people are not responsible for that same manner of wickedness, then how is asserting that 'some right-wing American baptists are responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder' not a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark?

I mean honestly, think about it for just a moment; if I announced that some gays are responsible for child molestations wouldn't that rightly be perceived as a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark? Some gays undoubtedly are responsible for child molestations, but as some certainly are not and as some right-wing American Baptists and some Presbyterians and Muslims and Asians and homosexuals and brown-eyed, etc, people undoubtedly are while others are not, then what point is made by announcing that some of any particular group stand guilty of something that some of any group stand guilty for? Isn't it not making any real point at all but merely evidencing a biased, prejudiced, bigoted view of the specific group isolated for the accusation?

And christopheranton, this is my main point in returning here to comment; both sides and all involved have their share of biased, prejudiced, bigoted individuals, both sides demonstrate narrow-minded, ill-informed, knee-jerk reactions - and both sides have level-headed, thoughtful, caring people who simply see things differently. Because someone has come to a personal conclusion on same sex marriage that differs from your view doesn't automatically require that this person must be attacking you, homophobic, fearful, narrow-minded, Neanderthal (or even dark Ages), bigoted, judgmental, etc, etc.

The whole contemporary notion of 'thank you for supporting me' simply misses the mark of the legitimate investigation of ideas. Not just the concern of this hub and discussion, but in many matters we have moved from an interest in what the objective truth actually is to a party spirit of 'if you don't agree with me then you are attacking me'. What does 'support' have to do with it? If some one agrees with me I don't take them to be 'supporting' me - I take them to have come to think a certain way about a certain issue, likewise if they disagree with me I don't take them to be 'attacking' me - I take them to have come to think a certain way about a certain issue. For me, this whole 'thanks for your support' reveals a detachment from seeking truth and a bias toward a specific party spirit.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickey Sr.

When you can point out to me instances of when gay organisations bankroll prejudice, and homophobic legislators, like the right wing christian organisation ,The Family, is doing with David Bahati in Uganda, then, and only then, can you insinuate that I am being bigoted in my views.

Equally, when I decide to thank somebody publickly for their support, as I have just done with lisadpreston, it is not for you to comment on the validity of my doing so. As I recollect, I am the writer of the article that has inspired all these comments. If I want to pay tribute to someone for what I consider to be valuable support, that is my entitlement. It is my comments section after all.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

I never cease to be amazed by people. People read what they want to read, they hear what they want to hear, they have no understanding of the bible but claim to be experts. I'm not casting my pearls before the swine anymore on this issue. Peoples minds are made up regardless of what evidence and reasonable arguments are presented. I never get into religious debates for this reason and I can't believe I did on this hub. I guess I had to speak my mind when I saw how rude, and unChristianlike with insults, the commenters were to my friend. It is sad when you have to defend yourself for saying thank you in a comment to a friend on your own hub. But then, I am not surprised. People with no real control, try to control everything and everybody. I apologized to the person that I got rude with (because I am a real Christian and try to practice what I preach and when I am wrong, I am woman enough to admit it) and we have reached an understanding.(The person was kind enough and Christian enough to forgive me).

I had never heard your explanation of homosexuality from the perspective of the scriptures and the people you mentioned. Whether I believe it or not, it was interesting and an intelligent person loves to view all perspectives. I don't believe all theories in science, but I find them all interesting and learn from exploring them. A closed mind will never learn anything. We have seen many examples of that.

Since BIG BROTHER is watching, I will communicate with you more privately. I wasn't aware that hubpages was a religious organization and all conversation was limited to bible talk. Many are breaking the rules.

love you!


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~

c > "When you can point out to me instances of when gay organisations bankroll prejudice, and homophobic legislators, like the right wing christian organisation, The Family, is doing with David Bahati in Uganda, then, and only then, can you insinuate that I am being bigoted in my views" <

But your remark ("responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder") was not addressing 'The Family', you were addressing "Right Wing Baptists in The United States". Again, if I announced that some gays are responsible for child molestations, and I was actually talking about a very specific organization, wouldn't that rightly be perceived as a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark?

c > when I decide to thank somebody publickly for their support, as I have just done with lisadpreston, it is not for you to comment on the validity of my doing so" <

I'm not commenting on your public 'thanks for your support' to lisadpreston - if you feel that she supports you and/or your views and you appreciate that then by all means you should thank her. My point was on the contemporary concept of how we (whoever) disagree with each other . . . if I write a hub on the Trinity and someone posts in comment that they believe the idea of the Trinity is a man-made doctrine and is not Biblical, I don't assume that they are attacking me or are Trinity-a-phobic, or own some secret fear of things that come in threes, etc - I take them to simply see things differently than me.

Likewise, if someone posts that they do agree with me and count the truth of the Trinity to be crucial to right Christian thinking I don't take that to be them supporting me but simply as sharing their own view that, this time, happens to be one I agree with. When we insert all these conditions of 'attack' or 'support' it (seems to me to) assumes that those who see things differently than we do are our enemies and out to get us, etc. When I see you (or whoever) thanking another poster who agrees with you for 'supporting' you, it seems to me to imply that if I disagree with you then I must be 'attacking' you - and I'm not at all, I don't even know you.

Of course you can see this differently, and of course this is your hub, etc, etc . . . I'm only sharing with you my own perception that this 'supporting' and 'attacking' premise over simple disagreements seems to me to insert a personal component when we are talking about ideas not each other (I am anyway).


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

lisadpreston.

Thanks again for all your support. I'm glad that something I said was of some help to you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickey SR.

I,m glad you mentioned The Trinity. This was a belief that caused many peopole to be persecuted in former times.

The mistaken belief, that homosexual practice is sinful, is resulting in oppression and murder on a grand scale throughout the world today.

That is the point that I am trying to make. That is a statement of simple fact not, as you imply, an exercise in bigotry.

Whether you want to split hairs, by calling these people who go to Africa from The United States to bankroll politicians promoting execution for gays, Baptists or Evangelicals, the fact is that they are promoting judicial murder of, an already oppressed, minority.

This is not in accordance with the will of any God I know.

Oppression, based on the biblical interpretation that to be actively gay is sinful, is not just confined to christian societies. It also underpins the law that condemns homosexuals to death in many muslim countries as well.

It truly is a pernicious belief.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

c > "The mistaken belief, that homosexual practice is sinful, is resulting in oppression and murder on a grand scale throughout the world today.

That is the point that I am trying to make. That is a statement of simple fact not, as you imply, an exercise in bigotry." <

I never said, suggested, or implied that recognizing that some people who practice a hostile oppression against gays base their belief that practiced homosexuality is a sin on the Bible, or that some people who believe the Bible presents practiced homosexuality as a sin and then practice a hostile oppression against gays is an exercise in bigotry. You either missed my point or find it difficult to stay on point - again, and honestly; if I announced in some hub I wrote that 'some gays are responsible for child molestations' wouldn't you rightly perceive that as a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark?

c > "Whether you want to split hairs, by calling these people who go to Africa from The United States to bankroll politicians promoting execution for gays, Baptists or Evangelicals, the fact is . . ." <

Why not call them 'The Family'?! That's who you said is doing this. This astounds me - your whole discussion here is about how and why the hostile oppression of a whole group of people comes to be, and you suggest that the hostile oppression of gays comes from people imagining that the Bible condemns homosexual practices when it in fact affirms homosexual practices. However, I believe the Bible clearly and undeniable condemns homosexual practices yet I count the hostile oppression of any group of people to likewise be just as condemned in Scripture and I have no personal inclination or desire to see gays hostilely oppressed.

Meanwhile you appear to count it reasonable to indiscriminately lump people into a group that you (understandably) condemn based on the merest linguistic similarities. It's astounding to me that one who feels a sense of being oppressed because he is numbered among a particular group can so easily include people in reprehensible groups who simply and factually not part of that group.

Why not call them 'The Family'?! That's who you said is doing this. You identify yourself as a 'Christian' don't you? Should we say that Christians are bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays? You're a middle aged guy aren't you? Should we say that middle aged guys are bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays? Why not say 'The Family' bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays, that's who you said is doing this? christopheranton, it's your view and approach here that promotes bigotry and oppression, not mine. Certainly you would agree that there are Baptist groups wholly separate from 'The Family' who give their attention and use their resources to provide aid to others in need - it's not Baptists who are bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays, it's 'The Family' (who happen to be baptists and men and American and brown eyed and wear suits, etc, etc) . . . again, if I (in a certain context) said 'some gays are responsible for child molestations' that would be a bigoted, prejudiced statement because some (many) don't and some heterosexuals do, etc.

You need to recognize that someone can disagree with you about the Bible affirming homosexual practices, and even disagree with you about homosexual practices being sin or not, etc, and still 'support' you as an individual, wish you well and desire to be your friend, etc . . . because I believe differently than you on some points doesn't mean I want to oppress you or hate you or fear you or am your enemy. If you take all I've said here as another perspective, as me sharing what it is I believe, etc, and not as an attack from an enemy (simply because we see things differently), and if you stay on point, I think you could see that what I'm asserting about bigotry and castigating a whole group, etc, as valid and not at all contrary to what you in fact think as well.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Christopheranton, I have never seen the original text that the bible was translated from nor the original writings of Moses and other authors of the books, nor would I understand the Hebrew or Aramaic language or print even if I did see it. I was wondering if you had and could it be possible that certain words and phrases were translated incorrectly? Could it be that some things were added due to wanting persecution of certain groups of people that were hated? Therefore perpetuating hate in the use of holy scriptures? We have learned that certain books written by biblical men and women were left out of the bible simply because the writings were opposed to the general thought of what the church wanted the people to abide by. True meanings are oftentimes lost in translation. Just curious.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickey Sr.

If you cannot see the connection between the low level prejudice, you profess, and the excesses practiced by christians in Africa, there is very little more that I can say to you.

I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me, but when the theological position that that person holds leads to death and destruction, then I have no scruples about criticising them.

I dont believe that you are a bad person. I just hold that you are promoting a false view of what The Bible really says on the practice of homosexuality, and that the view you hold, has lead to much great evil.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

lisadpreston.

If you check out this link, it may help to answer your question.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html

Mickey Sr. you might benefit from reading it too.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

c > ". . . the excesses practiced by christians in Africa . . . <

So now they're not even 'Baptists', it's 'Christians' who are promoting execution for gays in Africa? christopheranton, you identified the culprits as 'The Family', I honestly don't understand your willingness to broaden your accusation from 'The Family' to 'Baptists' and now to "Christians' - are you promoting execution for gays in Africa, you're a 'Christian' aren't you?

Calling this kind of generalizing "low level prejudice" are asserting that other's prejudice is far worse strikes me as ludicrous - I suppose that I, personally, would prefer that someone accuse me of doing some evil I've had no part in simply because I'm a Christian than to have them promoting my execution simply because I'm a Christian - but if they know who the real guilty party is and they know that it's not me, I wouldn't call it "low level prejudice" when they accuse me anyway.

As I said, why not say 'The Family' is promoting execution for gays in Africa instead of saying Baptists or Christians or Frenchmen or brown-eyed people are promoting execution for gays in Africa? If you feel that you've been the victim of any manner of bigotry and prejudice, I honestly don't understand how this seems ok to you!?

c > "I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me, but when the theological position that that person holds leads to death and destruction . . ." <

christopheranton, honestly, you need to stop and reflect on your stand with this - you're conducting yourself like

the Fundamentalist I imagine you count to be unreasonable in his arrogance and reckless in his judgmentalism. Please consider this honestly:

You're saying that holding the theological position that homosexual practices are condemned in Scripture leads to death and destruction, because, undoubtedly, those engaging in behavior that leads to death and destruction toward gays agree with that theological position. But how is that different reasoning from the Fundamentalists who say (for instance) that it's wrong for Christians to drink alcohol?

The Bible says it's wrong to get drunk, it doesn't say it's wrong to drink, in fact, there are passages in Scripture where drinking is observably not frowned upon at all, and passages where drinking is even suggested. But because, with some, drinking leads to drunkenness, some Fundamentalists construe that since drunkenness (which is wrong) comes from drinking then drinking is wrong - but there are, of course, many, many people who drink and do not get drunk . . . it's not drinking that's wrong - it's drunkenness that's wrong.

christopheranton, I hold the theological position that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible but I do not at all in any way promote the execution or any manner of death and destruction for gays. As a Christian (who has been forgiven so much myself and been called to love my neighbor as myself) I instantly assert that I stand more opposed to the execution or any manner of death and destruction for gays than anyone.

christopheranton, I don't know you (so of course I could be totally mistaken), but it appears (to me) that you have so much personally invested in the ideas we're talking about here that you're not looking at this with an objective, analytical logic . . . it's like, if I were a drunk, I would be arguing 'Does the Bible really say we shouldn't get drunk? Aren't there other things far worse than getting drunk? Besides, when I'm drunk I love everyone, so . . . and everyone who's telling me to stop drinking is just being mean to me and attacking me'. Meanwhile, all those not so personally close to the issue are thinking 'Of course the Bible says we shouldn't get drunk, it's observably stated all over the place . . . and, we're not being mean to anyone, we're simply stating what we find to be clearly presented as the truth in Scripture, we're not attacking anybody'.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

lisadpreston,

l > "Could it be that some things were added . . . certain books written by biblical men and women were left out of the bible simply because the writings were opposed to the general thought of what the church wanted the people to abide by. True meanings are oftentimes lost in translation." <

lisadpreston, you're reading books or listening to teachers who are resting their conclusions on very poor scholarship. The ideas you've presented above are demonstrably inaccurate. The oft repeated argument of so many is, 'how can we trust the Bible, certainly over the many centuries and the many revisions it has been altered again and again, and some men surely must have deliberately inserted or removed portions to support their own doctrines so as to control the people?', etc, etc. However, it can generally and publicly be demonstrated archaeologically, historically, and textually that the Bible we have today is virtually the same Bible that Christians originally had.

The men who copied and later translated the ancient texts of Scripture believed they were handling the very word of God, every page was numbered, every line was numbered, every word was numbered and every letter was numbered, and portions were exchanged from copyist to copyist to check the '234th page, 17th line, 5th word, 3rd letter' to make sure it was the same letter as the original . . . these men would write 'God' breaking the pen after the 'G', then a new pen after the 'o' and another after the 'd', they held the text to be so holy and of divine origin that they did not want a pen used to write 'God' to then be used for any other word. We have extant letters, sermons, commentaries, etc, from 1st century men, men who were intimate students and companions of Peter and John, etc, with enough quoted passages of Scripture to construct the entire New testament and nearly all of the Old Testament - and it is the same Bible text we have today.

And there are no secret lost books of the Bible - people have used this misrepresentation to sell books for generations. The Gnostics were an early religious group that believed they possessed a special secret knowledge ('gn?sis' means knowledge) and they promoted their religion by aligning it with Christianity. They sent out numerous writings that they attached apostle's names and Christian teachings to, including 'The Acts Of Thomas', "The Apocalypse of Adam", "The Gospel of Judas", etc. Some, with an agenda and a willingness to skip thorough and honest investigation, assert that the Gnostics were an early Christian sect and that all these 'lost books of the Bible' have been recovered in their ancient texts - these books were known and were never part of the Bible, and when you read them it is clear that they are nothing like the actual Bible that is the Bible.

There are very poor translations, and there are some translations that are better (more accurate to he original texts) than other translations . . . but, honestly, whatever any of us believe in our hearts about the Bible, God, Jesus, Christianity, etc, is one thing - but it can be demonstrated archaeologically, historically, and textually that the Bible we have today is virtually the same Bible that Christians originally had.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickey Sr.

I agree that you are not personally murdering gays, but the position you hold regarding the sinfulness of gay sex is lending comfort to those who do.

If you really are interested in finding out what The Bible really says on this subject, read the article in this link.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html

They put it a lot more eloquently than I can.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Oddly enough Mickey Sr, I find myself in complete agreement on the issue of the gnostic books. Most of them were written over one hundred years after the official gospels as well.

You are totally right to dismiss them as spurious.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

c > "I agree that you are not personally murdering gays, but the position you hold regarding the sinfulness of gay sex is lending comfort to those who do." <

So, again, do you fault people who have wine with pasta or a beer after mowing the lawn because they are "lending comfort to those who" are drunkards? Do you suggest that we prohibit free speech because that right is "lending comfort to those who" advance ideas we disagree with? Should we restrict gays from marriage because recognizing same sex marriage is "lending comfort to those who" who practice spousal abuse or divorce or commit adultery, etc?

We should believe what is actually true and practice what is actually good and right - we shouldn't believe whatever appears to generate our more desirable results or practice whatever seems to us to lead to what we perceive as a more favorable consequence. My reasonable and responsible grandson is not permitted to take an aspirin with him to school because some unreasonable and irresponsible kid might try to sneak drugs into school - that is not only ludicrous but is an evil in itself . . . the Bible cautions us against calling what is good 'evil' and calling what is evil 'good'.

Again, your reasoning is illogical and unsound because you are starting with an already defined premise that must be kept intact, you begin with an already assented to idea and then try to shape evidence and argument to suppose what you already think - evidence and argument should inform what we understand to be the truth, what we already regard to be the truth cannot inform how we consider and measure the evidence and argument.

c > "Oddly enough Mickey Sr, I find myself in complete agreement on the issue of the gnostic books" <

That should seem odd at all . . . it's not (or shouldn't be) like you are on one team and I'm on the other, always and only to disagree on any and everything - we should both be seeking authentic truth and, certainly, see some things differently but agree on much as well. What we've both posted here about the Gnostic books is simply the factual truth, there's no reason it should appear odd that we both agree on the facts.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Christopheranton- I will read the link. I was just curious about certain word translations because even in translation of words that are not biblical, the true meaning can be lost. Not intentional but because of cultural differences and just matching in general. I'm just trying to explore all avenues and not make concrete decisions about things that I'm not totally informed of. I'm still confused as to how a good person is born homosexual, without any say so in the matter, yet a few scriptures say it is wrong. It doesn't make sense to me. I would like to think that God starts everyone on a level playing field if He is to judge their actions. It is this type of thing that causes me so much turmoil in my soul regarding religion. I did get more understanding from your other hub in which you explore this issue in more detail. The eunuch from birth explanation was quite enlightening. Thank you again.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

I did read the link and thank you so much. That certainly answered my question. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickey Sr.

"Again, your reasoning is illogical and unsound because you are starting with an already defined premise that must be kept intact, you begin with an already assented to idea and then try to shape evidence and argument to suppose what you already think"

That is precisely what I feel you are doing, but you seem to be only capable of seeing these failings in other people, and are blind to them, when they are in yourself.

Have you read the article I have linked to above? Or are you unwilling to consider the notion that your long cherished notions might be proven false?

If you are as logical, as you say your are, put it to the test, by considering evidence, that you seem so far not to have even considered.

Dont take my word, only, for what I say. Read what a real Bible scholar has to say about the Bible and homosexuality. You may be enlightened. You will certainly be surprised.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks for reading the article lisadpreston. I hope it answered a lot of your questions.

I am encouraging some others to read it as well.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

M >> "Again, your reasoning is illogical and unsound because you are starting with an already defined premise that must be kept intact, you begin with an already assented to idea and then try to shape evidence and argument to suppose what you already think" "That is precisely what I feel you are doing, but you seem to be only capable of seeing these failings in other people, and are blind to them, when they are in yourself." <

I try to be alert to just that, I am earnest in my interest to never look for support or application or encouragement when I study Scripture - I look for the truth that is being presented (and if in that truth I find support or application or encouragement, or conviction & admonishment) then my desire is to adopt that truth as my own. christopheranton, I didn't originally, and don't now, come to the Bible with an agenda, I have no preference I hope to find validation for in Scripture - I believe it is revealed eternal truth and I simply want to know it and believe it and live it . . . whether it condemns or affirms homosexuality, or capitalism, drinking, benevolence, adultery, etc, etc, etc, I have no stake in, if I found the Bible to affirm homosexual activity then I would happily affirm homosexual activity.

As for who is being illogical here; you said 'The Family' is responsible for promoting execution for gays in Africa, then you started saying Baptists were promoting execution for gays in Africa and then that Christians were promoting execution for gays in Africa. All I'm saying is, why slander Baptists generally and Christians generally if you know that it's 'The Family' that you are bringing your accusation against . . ? . . to defend that kind of generalization by labeling it "low level" prejudice is an unsound argument. And then to fault me because a perfectly reasonable and Biblically supportable understanding I have is twisted by some to defend their own evil, when you admit that your part here was a "low level" prejudice, is astoundingly illogical.

Again, should I advance that drinking is wrong, when the Bible does not say it's wrong, because when some people drink they drink too much? My view is sound and defensible - your assertion that your own prejudice is ok because it's not as bad as other's prejudice is unsound and indefensible. Logic is fully on my side here. I know that not everyone who drinks is going to get drunk and you know that not every baptist, and certainly not every Christian, promotes execution for gays in Africa - and so I don't assert that no one should ever drink, but you have asserted that Baptist and then Christians promote execution for gays in Africa (or, we both know that not everyone who holds that the Bible condemns homosexual conduct acts in violence against gays, etc) . . in my argument 1 + 1 = 2, in your argument 1 + 1 just doesn't add up - your reasoning is illogical and unsound.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickey Sr.

If you are that devoted to truth, how is it that you appear not to have read the article that I linked to for your enlightenment.

Are you afraid that your erroneous interpretations of The Bible might be proved to be just that?

The early Christians were prepared to go through tortures for the sake of the truth. Are you unable to even read an article, in the same cause. Here is the link again.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html

I doubt if your logic will continue to support your position, after you have read it.

But then I suspect that logic, and devotion to any sort of truth, plays little part in your reasoning, despite all your protestations.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."Isaiah53:3

Christopheranton, that brought a tear to my eye. His suffering spirit lives in so many that are scorned.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks lisadpreston. I can only agree with you here.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

MickeySr, I just noticed my name in one of your comments above. Your statement regarding what I presented is off mark. If you would actually read instead of condemn, you would have read that I said I was wondering something and then I asked a question. In fact 3 questions. You don't know what in the hell I read or who my teachers were or are. You presume too much without all of the information. Also the questions were directed to the writer of the hub. Don't put words in my mouth and say I don't trust the bible. I have no preconceived ideas regarding anything. I am trying to learn, unlike you. Personally from your statements, I think you're an idiot and I wouldn't believe anything you said regarding God or Jesus even if your tongue was notarized. You are the typical closed minded hypocrite that caused me to quit going to church. Stay out of my conversations, they are directed to the author of the hub. He is actually a learned man. Thank you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks for coming in there lisadpreston. I was finding him a bit heavy going myself. He makes pedantry look like hippyism.

As always your support is really much appreciated.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

lisadpreston,

I am very sorry if in the midst of back-and-forth discussion confined within a limited space and manner of expression I was not careful enough in how I presented myself and my understanding of things - it was not at all my intention to misrepresent you or 'put words in your mouth'. I honestly make no assumption about you and fully and easily recognize that I don't know you at all.

The ideas you expressed are very common and popular, and many today adopt these views after reading or listening to men who exercise very poor scholarship - I should not have addressed that circumstance as I addressed you personally, of course I do not know what you read.

As far as my comments being "off the mark" with what you said, I understand that you were asking questions - but you also made what appeared to be a statement and not a question when you said ~

"We have learned that certain books written by biblical men and women were left out of the bible simply because the writings were opposed to the general thought of what the church wanted the people to abide by"

. . . and I was responding to that primarily, asserting ~

"people have used this misrepresentation to sell books for generations" and then addressing the matter of the Gnostic material - an assertion that christopheranton in fact agreed with saying "You are totally right to dismiss them as spurious".

lisadpreston, I understand we see this differently, I recognize that we disagree - but I'm not sure what I've said that demonstrates to you that I am unwilling to learn, an idiot, and the typical closed minded hypocrite that caused you to quit going to church . . . you must admit that there is, in your evaluation of me, a bit of assumption on your part as well.

We see this particular matter differently, and I don't doubt there are other issues on which we might disagree - but I am not unwilling to learn, I am not an idiot, closed minded hypocrite . . . and very frankly, I would be interested to know exactly what I've said here to suggest I am the miserable brute you paint me to be?

Again, I should have been more circumspect in my phrasing and I do genuinely apologize for offending you or troubling you in any manner - I have no interest to do that will try to be more careful.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

c > "He makes pedantry look like hippyism" <

. . . could it be that such a loopy, but not unsound, perception is sensed because I am a hippie and the understanding I advance is outside the mass lunge to be in with the popular trend (as authentic hippies are inclined to be), and so it appears to those in the rush to own the new 'approved' view to simply be pedantic?

Believe me, I fully recognize that what I'm presenting here can easily be taken as mere narrow-minded clinging to some safe and known past value system . . . but I am not 'anti-gay' and I do not hold the view I do because of any ill-informed fear-based disdain for boys kissing boys - I have well-considered, honestly deliberated over, serious reasons for owning the view that I do. It is biased knee-jerk reactionism to easily catalog me as obviously a narrow-minded neanderthal because we haven't come to the same conclusion about this.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Good answer there Mickey Sr.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Mickery Sr.

I dont think you are a neandarthal. But I do think that the views you hold, re homosexuality and The Bible, are dangerous.( You probably feel the same way about mine).

Your opinions are dangerous, because they are the very ones that have underpinned the oppressive actions of fanatics for the last fifteen hundred years or so.

If the mainstream churches would come out and declare that active homosexuals are as worthy in God's eyes as their heterosexual brothers and sisters, Christianity would finally come of age.

I believe it will happen in the next few decades, and I hope I live to see it.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

So do you believe and assert and actively promote efforts that I be oppressed? I assume not, and so, I count myself to advance opinions that are far less inclined to oppress than you do - it is bigotry, bias, generalization, etc, that promotes oppression, not simply owning a different understanding on some issue than another holds, and you are practicing that kind of bigotry, bias, and generalization against me and those who see things as I do.

christopheranton, you seem to have a single notion that any and all must fit into if they take the Bible to present that homosexual practices are not approved but are condemned by God . . . my assumption is, like just about every thing else, there are folks on both sides of this matter who are deliberative and narrow-minded, honest with the evidence and biased, loving and mean-spirited, etc. I absolutely, fully, and happily agree with you that "active homosexuals are as worthy in God's eyes as their heterosexual brothers and sisters" and I know that there are many church camps that stand on that very ground.

I think that because I stand on 'this' side of the issue, because I see the text of Scripture as condemning homosexual activity, I am (because of prejudice) assumed to hate gays and desire them to be oppressed in some manner (like regarding insurance, hospital visitation, tax, etc, matters). I don't have any notion even close to imagining that I, because I am a heterosexual, I am more worthy in God's eyes than you or any homosexual. At all.

But I think you can't see that and are confused about that because it is you, not me, who is practicing a narrow-minded bigotry - you are attaching your own assumptions to me as accusations against me.

christopheranton, I know that you, as a homosexual man, are not necessarily politically liberal, into fashion, promiscuous, 'fierce', etc, etc - my assumption is, like anyone I might meet, you might be smart or foolish, you might follow sports or soap operas, you might free-thinking or narrow-minded, etc.

I don't assume that because you're gay you must be open-minded, you must be heroically bold, you must be fair and honest, etc - your assumption of my view, that homosexual activity is condemned not affirmed in the Bible, seems to be that I must desire you be oppressed and that I count myself more worthy in God's eyes than you, etc . . . to me, the dangerous, prejudiced, narrow-minded thinking that leads to the oppression of others is coming from your assumptions of others not me understanding of the text of Scripture.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySr.

I am not accusing you of bigotry. I dont know you well enough to make any assumptions about your personal character.

What I am saying is that, just as a house has to be built on foundations, the notion that homosexual practice is anathema to God, lays the foundation for all the prejudice and cruelty that grows from that base.

The saying that "God loves the sinner, and hates the sin" is rubbish when it is applied to people who are expected to deny themselves full expression of their God given nature, in order to fulfill some narrow criteria for what pleases The Divinity.

That, in simple terms, is my position. I have seen nothing in any of the comments here that persuades me to change it.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Hi christopheranton, hi MickeySr.

This hub has somehow become a routine part of my life. I will come back later to comment as I actually read through most of the earlier comments today. I had skipped most of them before, unless a certain word popped out at me or my name, just because I didn't want to be intrusive. I tend to think comments are for the author and reader mostly, and like to respect that. HOWEVER, this hub has caused quite a stir. There has been some good cross talk. I have to go over the comments again because it is so lengthy and I want to take notes. I cannot even believe that I need to take notes from a comment section. LOL.

Listen guys. Debate is good as long as our intent is to learn and discuss with respect and love. We are human and we will get angered, excited, offended, and sometimes downright mean! This is okay. We are allowed to be flawed. The important thing about passionate debate that I discovered is; that in the end or sometimes in the middle, our true spirit of God shines through and we humble ourselves to apologize when we are wrong. We all forgive the other, and leave from the table a little closer to God, a little more tolerant, a little more understood, a little more humbled, and hopefully a little more educated. This has been my experience and I believe it is the experience of at least a few of you.

MIckeySr, thank you for the apology. You are a bigger man than I imagined. All is forgiven. Now it is my turn and I am ashamed to say that this is the second apology that I have had to make in the comment section of this hub. I am sorry MickeySr for calling you an idiot. I was wrong to say that. Maybe I shouldn't have called you a hypocrite. If I conclude in my personal judgment that you are a hypocrite, please don't be offended. I respect you even if I disagree with you. I think I shall quit while I'm ahead, lest I give cause for a third apology.

christopheranton, you simply amaze me. Your humor and wit surpasses all. Your patience is divine, and I don't think I have met anyone who knows so much about everything. The knowledge you posses accompanied by wisdom just blows me away. I am forming this opinion from the accumulated hubs you have written, not just this one. This is admiration, not worship, MickeySr.

One more thing to say, then I promise I will leave.

MIckeySr, Mr.C does not need my encouragement, support, loyalty, or agreement on any topic he chooses to write about. This man can hold his own in any given situation. He doesn't speak about things that he hasn't researched from every perspective with an abundance of proof to back him up. He writes what he knows emphatically to be true because he is responsible. Not because of any personal bias in a matter. I honestly believe that Mr.C's character is true enough to say that homosexuality is wrong and a sin, if he believed it was. His faith in God, would just cause him to say, "Hey everyone, I am gay and homosexuality is a sin." I know God will remove this from me, etc., etc." But he honestly believes what is in this hub, therefore, he has no shame, no guilt, no agenda (other than to promote truth).

Now christopheranton, please have tea ready when we all meet in your parlour again. Or depending on what MickeySr's next comment will be, have a nice whiskey on hand for me! Cheers!


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

I understand what you're saying, but my point is that I don't think it is holding one view or the other regarding the Bible's assertion regarding homosexual activity or believing that God commends homosexual activity or affirms it that lays the foundation for all the prejudice and cruelty perpetrated against gays - I believe it is prejudice and cruelty that lays the foundation for all the prejudice and cruelty perpetrated against gays.

If we look at prejudice and cruel actions perpetrated against anyone, we see that heterosexuals can be prejudiced and cruel against homosexuals and homosexuals can be prejudiced and cruel against heterosexuals, Whites can be prejudiced and cruel against Blacks and Blacks can be prejudiced and cruel against Whites, men against women and women against men, liberals against conservatives and conservatives against liberals, etc, etc. The common feature in all these circumstances is not what you understand to be God's position on homosexual activity, the common feature here is that some people, no matter what they believe to be the truth about something, some people are inclined toward prejudice and cruelty and some are not.

When you (whoever) assert that my mere view of an idea, the understanding I count to be the truth about something, when you assert that it is that belief or understanding alone that is the foundation of someone's prejudice and cruelty, then you discount my view without regard to it's genuine legitimacy, it is instantly invalid because of the ugliness you say it promotes. The validity of an idea is then determined, not by an honest and thorough investigation and consideration of the evidence, but an idea is determined valid on the basis of how the worst prejudiced and cruel individuals who assert it to be their view (whether they have any genuine comprehension of the real idea or not) act out their prejudice and cruelty.

But even worse, the true ugliness, the authentic harm, the real evil, namely prejudice and cruelty, is passed over as a mere appendage to an idea that simply differs from your own. christopheranton, I am living proof of the fallacy of your assertion; I believe your interpretation of the Bible on this matter is absurd - I believe the text is unavoidably clear in several passages, very suggestive in several other passages, and that the Biblical message as a whole simply makes no sense apart from the triune God making man in His own image, male and female, uniting them as one, and calling them to be fruitful, etc.

I believe God, in His word, condemns homosexual activity and does not at all affirm it - yet I do not and have no inclination at all to be oppressive or cruel toward gays, I am not prejudiced against gays, I love my brother and his partner and have great respect for the care and fidelity that they practice toward one another, etc, etc. My belief that God condemns homosexual activity does not at all suggest to me that I am more worthy of God's favor than Gays not does it at all incline me to any manner of prejudice and cruelty toward gays.

Now, you can say that, well maybe so for me but that for others it's different - but, what's different . . ? . . if we both believe homosexual activity is condemned but we don't both practice prejudice and cruelty toward gays, then it's not the idea, it's not our view that is promoting prejudice and cruelty - what's different is that they are prejudiced and cruel. The sooner we (this world) recognize that it is not merely seeing things differently from one another but it is the willingness to be prejudiced and cruel toward each other that is the evil, the sooner we will all stop speaking in terms of 'supporting' and 'attacking' someone's ideas and understand that ideas need to be determined to be accurate or inaccurate, not supported or attacked . . . and the sooner the true culprit, prejudice and cruelty, will be recognized the enemy of truth and peace.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

You are right there lisadpreston. The comments section here seems to have taken on a life of it's own. This must reflect the importance that people put on the subject. The world would be a better place if issues of personal sexuality didn't have such overwhelming significance in theology. Still we must play with the cards we have been dealt. That's human life for you.

Thanks for all the compliments, but I am not possessed of such great knowledge as you believe, and I definitely have my prejudices. They shine through in some of my articles. I do try to maintain a balance in the views that I express, and I do maintain a healthy respect for the search for truth. I dont always find it however.

You can drink gallons of tea in my parlour, or whiskey, or brandy as well. You deserve all of them.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Rather than continue a debate that seems to be going round in circles,

All Things Bright And Beautiful Hymn

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,

Each little bird that sings,

He made their glowing colours,

He made their tiny wings.

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all

The purple-headed mountain,

The river running by,

The sunset and the morning,

That brightens up the sky;

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all

The cold wind in the winter,

The pleasant summer sun,

The ripe fruits in the garden,

He made them every one;

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all

The tall trees in the greenwood,

The meadows for our play,

The rushes by the water,

To gather every day;

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all

He gave us eyes to see them,

And lips that we might tell

How great is God Almighty,

Who has made all things well.

All things bright and beautiful,

All creatures great and small,

All things wise and wonderful,

The Lord God made them all.

That includes homosexuals, and their active sexuality.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Lovely poem. Just for the record, I don't agree with everything you have written about on hubpages. Is that supposed to make me not like you as a person and discredit everything you write about? I should think not. We all have our prejudices. Most people would have been offended and gone off on a big campaign regarding a statement you made in another hub about thinking that all Americans are traitors. Well, I'm American! I just chuckled when I read it and knew that you would have good reason for saying that.

You do have vast amounts of knowledge and you know how to find information, which is even more important.

I haven't seen any proof given for why homosexuality is wrong throughout this comment section, so I am firm at this point, that God doesn't condemn it. Case closed for me.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi lisadpreston.

I think I was being a little "tongue in cheek" when I made that comment about Americans. "One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter".

I think we are definitely both in agreement with your last sentence.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

I knew that you meant no harm, but a closed minded person would have ran with that statement and formed a prejudice. Personally I thought it was funny because it had some truth to it and was courageous for you to say. I look forward to your next hub!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Cheers for that lisadpreston. I will have to write one this week. I have been a bit slack recently, what with moving etc. But I have no excuse now.


purewater26 profile image

purewater26 5 years ago

This is the funniest hub I've ever read. God supports homosexual? Big LOL....I agree with MickeySr. People tend to use and interpret Bible to support their own opinions. It happens to Christian and it also happens in other religions. And then, some people use it as excuse to condemn God and Christianity...


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

purewater26.

I,m glad you find the subject to be a funny one, and that you were able to "Laugh Out Loud".

Do you laugh when you read the accounts of the lies that are propagated throughout Africa, by Christians about homosexuals? Or when you read the stories of gays being brutally murdered by the same Christians?

Do you laugh when you hear of young Christian homosexuals in The United States committing suicide, because they are made to feel they are an abomination before God, by their fellows?

Did you laugh when you read about David Bahati, being sponsored by right wing American Christians to introduce a bill into the Ugandan Parliament to legalise the hanging of homosexuals?

Is your "funny bone" tickled by the sight of young people hanging from cranes in squares in Teheran, enduring slow agonising deaths from strangulation, just because they happen to have a minority sexual orientation?

If the answer to all of the above questions is "Yes", Then you are welcome to laugh at the subject of my article. If not, "Shut your mouth".

I hope you will be prepared to laugh as well when you are sitting in Hell, with your friends The Pharisees.


purewater26 profile image

purewater26 5 years ago

It's funny, Chris because you abused Bible to support your own ideology. You concluded something that are not exist from the verses that you used on your article, rather than believe what Bible explicitly wrote.

I never said that I'm agree with the ways of some Christians or other people (who claimed they were religious) treat homosexual. It was tragedy about what happened to some of them. What they did were wrong. I'm not deny it.

But, it doesn't mean that I should justify people's imagination and wrong interpretations on Bible. You have your right to write what you wanted to write. I have the same right to disagree.

You see...I didn't condemn you and homosexual people. I just wrote my simple opinion. And you condemned me to sit in Hell with my Pharisees friends. This was also funny when Christian wrote his opinion, people said he bashed or abused people.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

purewater26.

The people who abuse The Bible are those who try to use it in order to make others feel sinful, and unworthy of God's love.

I dont see any passages that I have specifically abused.

There is plenty in "The Good Book" that is worthy of condemnation anyway, like the accounts of Joshua's campaigns in Canaan. The evils that lead on from that episode still bedevil the world today.

You dont have to agree with persecution to encourage it. You only have to concur with the basic premise of the persecutors.

The reason why The Nazis were able to persecute The Jews so effectively, was not because The Nazis were evil scumbags, but because there was an underlying anti semetism in european society.

The same evil forms the foundation of Christian attitudes to homosexuals.

The notion that "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner", is just a cop out for those who can't see that the real sin is the one that tries to force people to give up their God given right to express themselves fully, sexually and emotionally, because it doesn't fit into some very narrow interpretation of what The Bible says.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 5 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton,

c > "The people who abuse The Bible are those who try to use it in order to make others feel sinful . . ." <

But, you will agree that a significant point and purpose of Scripture is, while perhaps not directly to make people 'feel' sinful, a great degree of attention is given to revealing to us the fact of our sinfulness . . . right? If someone missuses Scripture in a self-serving effort to make themselves feel better than their neighbor by trying to make their neighbor feel more corrupt than he is or particularly wicked in a manner in which he is not particularly wicked, etc, then that an evil and is not serving God - but if someone directs our attention and their own to Scripture that does indeed condemn us as corrupt, wicked, sinners, then you do not find fault with that, do you?

And, you express your disdain for "people who abuse The Bible are those who try to use it in order to make others feel sinful" by asserting such conduct is "unworthy of God's love" - isn't that pretty much exactly the gospel message, that none of us are worthy of God's love and need forgiveness?

Let me ask you this, because, I am unsure - do you count the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and the only source of authoritative truth, or do you think some of it is valuable if we handle it properly but some of it is simply ugly and should be disregarded?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySr.

I would say that a great emphasis has been put by some people on the parts of The Bible that emphasise our sinfulness.

Sin can be committed in a wide variety of different ways. Just as "one man's meat is another man's poison", so can one man's sin can be another man's pleasant indulgence.

I retain an open mind about the inerrancy of "The Good Book". I believe it was inspired of God, but it is not an accurate record of history, in every respect. Genesis, especially, is obviously allegorical. You must also remember that it is a very old book. Parts of it are almost three thousand years old in fact. The books of The Bible were primarily written for the people of it's time. They can only be understood properly in reference to the conditions, and attitudes prevalent at the time of their writing. That is why "Revelation" for instance, is understood to be about events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is not, as some mistakenly believe, a prophecy about the end of The World.

The references to homosexual activities have to be understood in the same way. There was Temple prostitution, both in the roman empire, and in Canaan. In some temples, sex with the priests was a form of worship. That is what was being condemmned; not the sex itself, but the pagan worship aspect of it.

The only recorded interaction between Jesus and an actual homosexual occurs when He cures the servant/lover of the centurion. There is no hint of condemnation there. Our Lord holds the centurion up as an exemplar of faith instead.

I dont think that The Bible is an ugly book, although it is difficult to see the edification to be derived from some sections of it, especially those parts of The Old Testament that relate the conquest of Canaan. But that is a different subject, and I have addressed it in a different article.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

So many excellent points here Christopheranton. If this is the funniest thing purewater26 has ever read, then he or she doesn't get out much and will be roflao when they graduate to humorous readings. I am truly excited for him.

MickeySr., Don't you think that people DO use the bible to point out to others just how wicked they think that person is? Would you agree that the bible speaks of so much more than just how wicked we are as people? Mickey, we must consider the time and what the people were doing and going through at the time the scriptures were written. We know there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations of the bible. One I can think of off the top of my head, and it should be much more worrisome to us than whether a person is homosexual, and that is God and Jesus names. God's name isn't God. God isn't even a name, it's a title. His name was Yahweh. They called Him El Shadi, or almighty provider. But He revealed His name to Moses at the burning bush. Even that is a mistranslation. It should read Ayah Asher Ayah, spelling I'm not sure. The bible says it means I am that I am. It should read, I will be what I will to be. Then they have our saviors name as Jesus. He was born a Hebrew. The Hebrews didn't have a j or j sound in their alphabet. We didn't get a J in our language till the 1600's. No J, no Jesus. He came in His fathers name which was Yahshua. Meaning Yah is salvation. You don't translate peoples names, so there was error somewhere. Also, they put Genesis as the first book of the bible, which should have been inserted after Moses received a vision on top of Mt. Sanai on one of his three trips, of God showing him how he created things. You don't actually think it took God 7 days to create the creation do you? I hope God isn't that slow and needs more rest than I do. But He showed Moses in a breakdown of how it was done and that took 7 days. My point is that there are many things we don't understand or even know about. I doubt that they even had the word homosexual back then. If we go only by the bible then I guess that means that drug dealers are off the hook and there is nothing wrong with selling drugs to kids, cause I don't see the words drug dealer in the bible anywhere. We have to understand the times. God didn't seem to have a problem with Abraham having a wife and a slave woman, Hagar. He didn't seem to have a problem with men having a whole slew of wives, yet if we see a man having more than one wife today, we think he is a sicko or VERY OVERSEXED INDIVIDUAL. There was so much more going on at the time scriptures were written that we have to take things in proper perspective. It always seems that we are made to feel guilty over our sexuality. I blame the Puritans for that. In America, we have had their belief system shoved down our throats from day one. If something feels good, it must be evil. Sex is taboo unless you are properly married and what a bore that is too. It is still on the legal books that anal and oral sex is punishable by law, between a man and a woman, not just homosexuals. Every man I have known, Christian or not has always had the fantasy of being with two women. Women who are engaging in lesbian activity.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

lisadpreston.

You certainly know how to say it as it is. I find myself in agreement with all you write. Except the notion that all men fantasise about having sex with two lesbians. That has definitely never been one of mine. LOL


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Ha hahahahahahahaha, now you know that you do!!!!!!!!!!!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Fantasising about having sex with a lesbian's two handsome brothers! that would be more my style.


lisadpreston profile image

lisadpreston 5 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

hahahahahahahaha. yes I know and maybe mine as well!


peanutroaster profile image

peanutroaster 4 years ago from New England

Excellent hub and important points.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks peanutroaster for your kind comments. Much appreciated.


truthfirst 4 years ago

If you choose to be blind

if you choose to fool yourself

if you choose to perversely lust knowing of the implications

by all means do so

but do not tell me

that God made you so

don't tell me

God will love you nonetheless.

don't tell me

Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.

Love truth,

love justice

walk humbly with the Lord

and repent.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi truthfirst.

How strange it is that someone with such an abysmal knowledge of scripture or history should have such a username.

A small point for your information. The connection between Sodom and Gomorrah and homosexuality was first made in the seventh century AD in a book written by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. That would only be around seven centuries after the last book of The Bible was written.

I am all for freedom of expression, but if you must spout your prejudices here, at least try to get a minimum of facts right.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

May God bless you christpheranton . There is too much hatred being spawned into "Christians" today. I say it in inverted commas because many are led by the revelation of man not God. You can tell how much of Christ someone has in them by their fruits , that and how much they used a "worldy" dictionary to twist GODS word.

The truth of the gospel is that we are ALL sinners and need the salvation of Christ.

When we receive Christ into us we are told to die to self.God has revealed that it is not who I am in Christ, but who Christ is in me that saves me from hell.

Lisa is totally correct that God is so vast and almighty that HE does not need us to judge or to get the bible out to bash people with. We are all sinners without Christ , and God certainly does not need man as his mouthpiece , HE can judge a heart HIMSELF.

Would Jesus stay in his comfort zone of a church today and use the bible to bash people with . ? NO HE would be with the sinners and the unsaved helping them , and loving them and leading them to the father in LOVE When man lifts himSELF higher than God in his life he is backsliding .

I love you christopher and pray you continue to yield to God to reveal His nature to you.

In Christs love . xxx


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Christinme.

What you are saying is very true. I wish there were more like you in the world.

God bless you and thanks. Your comment is much appreciated.


mrcraigthegreat 4 years ago

To say that the Bible doesn't forbid homosexuality is like saying Hitler was a wonderful man. I understand if you wish that homosexuality was not a sin, but don't you dare try and use the Scripture to justify what God is against. I rebuke you and your false article, and its foul how people are actually agreeing with you. It just shows how quick people will easily submit to foolishness.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

mrcraigthegreat.

I notice from your comment that you don't use any passages of scripture to back up your view. This is probably because you sense that my superior knowledge on the subject can easily counter your deficient understanding.

I therefore conclude that your opinions are formed round your own prejudices, rather than any real base of biblical scholarship.

May God bless you and gift you with some real understanding, and charity.

I have a feeling that He will have His "work cut out for Him" though.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

It is really sad that some men cannot see that we are All sinners. There are many things that God hates in a sinful world , including mans pride and self rightoeusness, but THANK GOD we have the blood of Jesus that brings forgiveness of sins if we repent to Him.

Hatred is against Christs character , He said the biggest commandment was LOVE. Even to love our enemies as ourselves as even satan knows how to love his friends.

It grieves my heart that the church nowadays is in such a mess. If Christian hates Christian what hope have unbelievers of seeing Christ in us. Have respect because we are all on different parts of Gods journey . We should be leading each other in love and truth .To hate is to murder in Gods eyes.


mrcraigthegreat 4 years ago

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Is that clear enough for you mr. christinme? oh and by the way, if Christ was really in you, then you would know the scriptures


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Christinme.

Thanks for that wise comment. Your name is very apt and reflects well your character.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Christinme.

Thanks for that wise comment. Your name is very apt and reflects well your character.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

The sad thing is Christopher is that the man this was aimed at obviously did not read it and take it on.

We have Christ in us. Jesus, Jesus character is not one of judgement , He is mild and gentle and leads in LOVE

It saddens me when religious people scapegoat homosexuals, God hates ALL sin including fornication ( sex outside marriage ) and adultery ( more than one partner) . God hates ALL sin thats my point.

Jesus said to love one another . I believe we should merely point people to our Father in heaven so HE can reveal Himself to them. Man cannot reveal God , he has no words to explain.

God bless you from your sister in Christ.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

Mrcraigthegreat. I do not understand where I have written that I agree with any sin . I can show love to christopher the author of this hub whether I agree with him or not. Jesus said the most important commandment was to LOVE. Sin is everywhere but THANK GOD we have Jesus. I do know my scripture but I only ever use it to lead someone in LOVE. Nothing on earth is for us to judge , we should praise and thank God for another Christian and lead them to our Father in heaven to teach them .

So so sad that man is raising him or her self above God on earth. God can show the TRUTH , a mystery that not even a man can explain.

I know I have Christ in me , do you? The bible is Gods Holy word of truth but HE is soo much bigger than the bible. And God does certainly not need man as a mouthpiece. All have freewill to accept Christ. BY bullying people all you are doing is leading them away from Christ.

I love you as a brother and urge you to yield to your Father in heaven and lean not on your own understanding.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

mrcraigthegreat.

Do you recognise these laws from Leviticus?

19 “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

I hope you are observing all these laws from The Bible. Otherwise you are guilty of great sin. Also remember that you should also remain standing when you are in the presence of the elderly. Do you do that?

I am pretty sure that you don’t observe all of those ordinances, (if you follow any of them). Yet you have the cheek to selectively use passages from the Good Book to castigate those who your own prejudices impel you to condemn. If you are unable to see the grave error you are in you have my sympathy.

Here is a final passage we all should remember.

Matthew 7:12

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

God bless you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Christinme again for your wise comments.

This passage is one I think we all need to remember as well.

John 7:53-8:11 in the Authorized Version:

7:53 "And every man went unto his own house.

8:1 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more".

Thank you for all your valuable help. I can see that you are a good woman. I'm sure God can as well.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

It is not about me , I am nothing without Jesus. It is not about who I am in Christ but who Christ is in me .

To be full of Christ and Holy spirit we have to be empty of SELF .

May God bless you as you search for HIM .


mrcraigthegreat 4 years ago

Christinme, I don't believe that you are a strong man of God. You may be a man of God, but not a strong one. I know that the Bible teaches us to show love to one another, but do you know what it means to do it? Lets use the love of Jesus for example, just because a person says they love Jesus doesn't actually mean that they do. To love Jesus is to follow his teachings and walk in his image. Now I know that you view Jesus as gentle, but according to the scriptures, he is not. During his time on Earth, he didn't just go around preaching love and compassion, he preached with the anger of God in him. To be a real Christian means to condemn sin, and not tolerate it. The Bible says that to truly love God is to hate evil, and if you don't hate evil, then you don't love God(Psalm 97:10). All sin is evil, rather it be homosexuality or worrying, all of it is evil. If you really are a man of God, then you need to really look in the Bible and see how God really feels about this world. He is angry and this world is already facing divine Judgement. I will never cower before this world, because I am a REAL man of God who condemns all wickedness in the name of Christ, including the detestable act of homosexuality. You need to check yourself, because to truly love someone means to save them from dying in their sin. I love everyone just as the Bible commands, but I will always condemn those who practice wickedness, because I hate evil just as my Father in heaven. Jesus is not coming to bring peace, but he is coming with a sword to destroy this world(Mathew 10:34). Where will you stand?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

mrcraigthegreat.

You really need to take your head out of your Bible and look beyond the narrow word. You are allowing your whole world view to become seriously warped. Do yourself a favour. Hide it at the back of your deepest cupboard and don't look at it until you have experienced some more of life. It's doing you much more harm than good at the moment.

BTW. I am still waiting for your reply to the questions I posed to you re Leviticus. I hope you are not running scared. That is the hallmark of a bully.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

mrcraig the great have you not even truly read what I have written. I am a woman but I am not a great woman of God I am a Christian who has a close relationship with my saviour. I have no pride as who I am, only who Christ is in me . Can I ask if you believe in the true power of God, or do you believe the gifts of the spirit have ceased? IT does not matter really , I can leave you to your self righteousness. I know God is almighty and allpowerful to do what ever a sovereign God wants to. HE certainly does not need me as a mouthpiece. Jesus loved the lost in the world as HE would do and does do today .

I am not arguing with you anymore , I am not defeated but urge you for GOD to show you all things and do not lean on your own understanding.

God bless you . xx


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I would like to second what you say in that last comment.


mrcraigthegreat 4 years ago

to christopheranton, i will respond to your Leviticus question. all i have to say is that i am aware of what they say and i am aware that God does not change. He is the same as he always was so i strongly believe in those laws, but dont try and turn this around to justify your view on homosexuality, because twisting the word of God around is a bad idea. and second, i will never take my head out of the Bible, because God word is how we learn from Him, and He commands us to be steadfast in His word.


mrcraigthegreat 4 years ago

to christinme I am sorry for mistaking you for being a man, and now I know why you are viewing God in a feminized way. I believe in the true power of God, but I dont think that you do. You believe in this "punktified" and feminine God that weak preachers preach about, but I beleive in the real God who is portrayed in the Bible. I believe in a God that is angry with how filthy people of this world are, I believe in a God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, I believe in a God who destroyed everyone except Noah and his family with the flood, I believe in a God that is not a respecter of persons, I believe in a God who creates hurricanes floods earthquakes tornadoes and thunderstorms to strike fear in those with weak hearts, I believe in a God who is coming NOT with open arms, but with a sword with blood dripping from it. That is the God of the Bible, He is mighty and great with all that He does, and I fear and submit to Him. Thats who I believe in because that is the real God and vengeance will be His


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Ezekiel 16:49-50:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good".

I really have not come across anyone with less understanding of The Bible than you mrcraigthegreat. Even the most elementary of Bible scholars knows that Sodom was destroyed for arrogance and disregard for the laws of hospitality. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it. The quoted passage, above, shows that. The belief that homosexual practice was the cause of God's wrath came from a book written by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in the seventh century AD. You are the one twisting the words of The Good Book. You evidently haven't got a clue how to understand it.

Furthermore, if you really have got so much respect for the Leviticus laws, how come you are pictured clean shaven? You should be sporting a full beard. There may be a "sword with blood dripping from it" pointing straight at your heart. Dont forget "the hair at the side of your head" either. It looks to me like it has been cut. If I can see it, the "Real God" can see it also and He doesn't like that. I cannot count the number of fabrics you have in your garments. You picture isn't clear enough. But "The Lord of Hosts" can. Make certain that you are within the permitted level.

Here is another quote for you.

Matthew 7:5.

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

Don't forget that one.

God bless you.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

Again mrcraig the great , you have unfortunately mis read my words again, I was talking of Jesus Christ , The SON of God who died on the cross to save us ( Christians) from The Fathers wrath . I feel pity for you that you are twisting my words against me . I have said that ALL men sin and GOD HATES ALL SIN but THANK GOD HIS SON DIED FOR OUR SINS. I was talking about Jesus character. HE really wound the scribes up the same as I appear to be winding you up. I am happy for this as it proves that Christ shines from within me, I am nothing but an earthly vessel for Gods work.

May I again implore you to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before you read the word of GOD. To read the bible with the incorrect spiritual guidance is a very dangerous thing to do. Lean not on your own understanding but yield to God the sovereign I AM to reveal HIMSELF to you. As you do not even mention Christ i fear that you are not a Christian at which point we will never agree . As Christians we acknowledge that God is angry at the world but there is saving grace in Christs blood shed for us . You can know all the scriptures word for word but without the Holy spirit inside they are worthless, and NOTHING will stop the JOY of the LORD within me and no fiery arrows that satan fires my way will steal my salvation as I have the shield of faith that Jesus is who His Father said He was and He died for us when we were still sinners to save us from Gods wrath.


mrcraigthegreat 4 years ago

Christinme, you do realize that Jesus Christ and the Father are one don't you? you are making it like they are separate or something. the trinity means that the Father, Son and Spirit are ONE. when I acknowledge one, I am acknowledging all, because I believe in them all. I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, and I thank the Holy Spirit like the scripture says. in Mathew 10:34, Jesus states "I have not come to bring peace on Earth, but a sword." That's my Jesus, and I suggest you read the book of Revelations so you can see what Jesus is really about. Jesus is the one who is going to destroy the world, and I fear him. You say I am misguided because I represent the Lord with strength and true knowledge of the scripture, but I can't get angry with you. I am constantly guided by the Holy Spirit and that is why I am strong in His word, so your weakness of heart is what makes you believe in a weak version of God. But I love you because you are my sister and I love christopheranton because he is my brother and I am sorry that we view God in a different way. but I view Him in the mighty and angry God that the Old Testament and Book of Revelations talk about, because a weak and gentle God doesnt deserve to be feared and praised. Jesus is the Lord of the old testament, so you should wake up. To christopheranton, I see that you are still trying to justify homosexuality, so hopefully this verse in the NEW testament will wake you up. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "do you not know that the unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God? do not be deceived. neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites. 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." Those are not my words, they are Gods. Please know that I am not trying to judge nor condemn you, I am just speaking the Word. I am your brother and I love you, so I dont wish to argue anymore. Live your life as you please. God Bless:)


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hello MrCraigthegreat. I concede that we are not going to agree on anything to do with this issue, although I should point out that the term homosexual is only an invention of the 19th century. It does not appear in any translation of the Bible before that date. However, rather than continue with what is becoming a very fruitless argument, I am deciding to agree to disagree which you. We are all God’s children after all. With God's grace we shall all meet in Heaven.


Carlo Jackson 4 years ago

OKAY, I want to speak my views. Now I am a homosexual BUT I believe it is a sin, I can not help my ways and I beg God every night to love me and keep me as a son. I am a Christian and btw WE DO NOT JUDGE. I am 17 and I married a 53 year old man last September, he's a billionaire so he made it legal for us. I love him with all my heart and I adore him, he's my L.O.V.E. but I can't help feeling quite sinful and ashamed, being Christian that I am it's a situation that is a bit twisted for me, it's not fun. Anyway this is it, I have nothing more to say, God bless you and keep healing the world everyone, God bless!


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

I leave you to your anger and self righteousness mrcraig the great . I wonder how many people you have actually help to harvest for the Lord. Not many i guess with all your hate and anger. Jesus was angry at the scribes who just studied the word. Whilst the scribes were making people seem small and bullying people with the word , Jesus was out doing the work of His Father. And yes i do understand the trinity . Sorry that you hub has been overtaken by a mere scribe and bully christopher .


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks for reading Carlo. I don't feel that you have got anything to be guilty about and neither does God stop. The notion that homosexuality is wrong is based on an incorrect reading of Scripture. Continue to live your life as you are leading it. I hope you are very happy. You are very fortunate to have found somebody that you can love, who also loves you. God bless you. He does love you just as you are.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

Carlo, I believe that we ALL sin , it is human nature but Jesus blood brings forgiveness.

" God will come and wrap his arms around you, IT wouldnt be too much to love you as HE found you. You may feel like your too far gone but HE will love you like his only SON, HE will come"

You are blessed with such a humble heart Carlo, dont ever change but lean on the LORD for ALL your needs.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Christinme.

I suspect that Craig has issues in his own life that he needs to work through. That is probably why he's adopting such an aggressive attitude to his fellow Christians. The best any of us can do at this stage is to pray for him. At some time the real love of Christ will act on his life. Then we will see a completely different person.


That Guy. 4 years ago

I have read your passages in Samuel and would like to point out the following.

1. The term kiss being applied to homosexuality is unfair. I kiss my father on the cheek and many do so in a manner of endearment unrelated to sex. In the new testament, the term kiss is used when Judas betrays jesus. This is just a social practice and not explicitly gay. Its conjecture to assume "mouth to mouth love".

2.One in spirit can refer to friends and stating "yeah, that sounds a little gay" does not make it so.

3. The act of disrobing (by the way robes were not the only articles of clothing worn)and offering your weapons toward an individual is often a sign of servitude or forfeit. Hence a covenant.

4. The "fall to the ground" verse can be taken like this. He fell to the ground, did the bowing thing and then kissed, and cried. It does not state, he fell to the ground with Jonathan and they kissed...as much of a romantic scene you may desire, the script states otherwise

5. Your Naomi and Ruth evidence is a bit flawed given that Ruth married one of Naomi's sons and then later Boaz (who is a guy). The whole first chapter of Ruth is Naomi referring to Ruth and her other daughter in law as "my daughters" and Naomi crying for a husband. It does say Ruth clutched to her but is this erotic? No. Just the endearment of a daughter in law to a loving mother figure.

6. Genesis chapter 9 has God stating to abraham that "were there 10 people that were righteous he would not destroy Sodom. However, he does and only spares lot. Now in a town of many, isn't it possible that a few were "just gay guys?" why were they not spared?

7.Your dismissal of the book of leviticus needs to answer this. If there was no problem with it, why bring it up? Just a thought. Also, the sin is not flower placement, its flower placement for pagan purposes.

8.The multicolored coat comment is a cheap attempt at a joke I presume. Only in recent modernity has a rainbow been a sign of homosexuality. You are trying to define the past with modern definitions in pop culture. Rainbows have been a symbol of peace long before the pride parades.

9. Speaking about definition, did you know that adulterous originally meant any immoral sexual act and not just cheating on a spouse. The bible condemns "the adulterous" on many occasions.

10. The "All Loving God" line...you really have to be careful about confusing God's love with human's love. If God was the human version of love ("whatever makes us happy") then there would not be a hell or any punishment or any sacrifice of Jesus for that matter because we would all be doing "whatever makes us happy" and not what is right. Think of it as a strict parent.

11. Yeah, that condemnation thing goes for Jesus to. Jesus never went against old teachings, he extremified them, only getting into trouble when stating he is the lord of the sabbath (Blapshemy!). As for his arguing with the pharisees, he was a whole lot like a rabbi (the future pharisee) and did what they did every day at the temple. Argue scripture. In the end his teaching do not accept others in total peace. After all, you'll still be going to hell. His teachings reflect a form of passifism that basically states, they are wrong, but how can you expect them to follow you if you are not willing to see your own faults? (aka Be concerned with YOUR salvation). After all, Jesus does state that he was there not to bring peace, but a sword. This in turn means, that should we willingly be confronted with questions on our fate, we must speak our understood truth as christians, not accept everything. Jesus is not some hippie, he is a stern Jewish religious leader with policies that take the old law to the extreme (don't cheat on your wife? well, DON'T EVEN LOOK AT ANOTHER WOMAN. Don't murder? WELL DON'T LAY A HAND ON ANOTHER). Its pretty hard stuff to follow, but it is true.

12. To better make sense of the previous point, think of this. If I harm a homosexual, not only is he condemned, but I am condemned as well for trying to be the judgement of God (a kind of blasphemy). This would be solving a sin with a sin. All I can then do is let that person be as is,help him when necessary, but should he ask me wholeheartedly if what he is doing is ok, I will regrettably have to say yes. This makes following God seriously hard, is is most likely why people either dilute or avoid christianity because it allows no real room for just doing whatever makes you happy.

If I were there I would buy you a sandwich.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

• I don't propose at the moment to go into a great detail regarding answering your very detailed post, but I will give you this link which you are welcome to check out for yourself regarding Joseph and his amazing coat. It doesn't go into a lot of detail does give us food for thought.

http://queering-the-church.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/...

If you are ever in this area I will happily accept a sandwich from you.


EinderDarkwolf profile image

EinderDarkwolf 4 years ago from Tempe, A.Z.

@christopheranton

Let me first state that I am in know way affiliated with any Christian denomination, nor do I follow the rules of Churchanity. That being said, I'd actually like to thank you for writing this hub. I came across it rather randomly but I think your points are very valid.

The first and foremost thing that most Christians tend to forget is that they are to strive to be like Jesus, not like Paul. Unfortunately they would rather be like Paul, who if anyone actually takes the time to study the words of Paul and see what he is actually saying, would find that he was very self-serving in trying to get himself into Heaven to begin with. Almost none of his ministry had anything really to do with helping others as it did with trying to be listened to and helping himself.

That not withstanding however, I did want to congratulate you on a very well written hub and defending yourself against all those who are not able to stand up on an intellectual level to talk about things. I think you did very well here and I will be sure to share it.

Cheers Mate!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thank you EinderDarkwolf for your supportive comment. I don't get too many of them on this particular hub. Much appreciated.

In defence of St Paul, I have to say that most people who read his writings, don't appreciate that they must be understood within the context in which they were written. Also most of his, so-called, condemnation of homosexuals is based round a deliberate mistranslation of what he is actually saying. For instance the term “homosexual” wasn’t invented until the 19th century but it is put into many translations of the Bible erroneously by those who want to use the Good Book to back up their prejudices. This is what we have to contend with unfortunately.



christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I'll leave the link. Let people make up their own minds.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

Thankyou The entire truth. That arcticle is very refreshing. I believe that David and Jonathan just had a very close brotherly friendship , which is very rare these days.

God bless you xx


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

The most likely thing really is that the story of David and Jonathan is an allegory. There isn't the archeolologist evidence for either of them. I expect people will argue about the meaning of the story for ever.

Such is life.


Christinme profile image

Christinme 4 years ago

Christopher do not be disheartened , You are a child of God whom He loves very much, regardless . We must praise God for the gift of His Son Jesus Christ, for there is no condemnation in the gospel of Christ , Amen and Amen.

I thank God for you, a brother in Christ and urge you to come into a deep relationship with Jesus our saviour, xx


hargis 4 years ago

Too many people read into the Bible which is called eisegesis. Which is to make the Bible say what you want it to say. The coorect way is to use exegeisis. Which is to have the Bible give the true meaning that God is giving. To best do this you have to use the original text not translations. Then you will find that all of your liberal beliefs are totally wrong. And you will still face judgment.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi hargis

I take it therefore that you are fluent in both ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. If that's not the case, you're talking absolute rubbish.

As regards judgement, we are all going to face judgement. Some will be judged bad and some good. You seem to be mixing up the term “judgement” with the term “damnation”. Take some time out to learn the basic meaning of English words, before you come to debate issues with me again.


keepermen profile image

keepermen 4 years ago

DMZ, Dave, and Itdoesn'tmatter all have it right. Your interpretations are refuted by the very context of the passages you quote. Your chasetisement of hargis is misguided. the glbt community does not understand close friendships of the same sex without having sex. Yet the passages you quote are just that. Our American culture does not understand what love is or is menat to be.

The basic flaw in your argument is the misappropriation of the term "love". The Creator is the person to define the term since He made us. Romans 1:26-27 describes the passions between two women or two men as "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." What is being said to you is not hateful - but simply getting us all to accept God's design. see "http://www.gatekeepermen.us/ReviveUS/revive-us/sav...".


keepermen profile image

keepermen 4 years ago

christopheranton,

DMZ, Dave, and ItDoesntMatter have it right. What the glbt community fails to understand that one can have a close friendship with a person of the same sex without having sex. Along with that is a misappropriation of the word "love". Our modern society doesn't know the meaning of the term. “Love” is self-sacrificing by putting the other person’s interests first and by bringing out he “best” in the other person. “Best” will always be defined by God’s standards. God is the Creator – we do not create Him in our image.

The Creator is the person to define the term since He made us. Romans 1:26-27 describes the passions between two women or two men as "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." What is being said to you is not hateful - but simply getting us all to accept God's design. The gender confusion that exists in our country is a man-made self-fulfilling prophecy.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi keepermen.

I don't know how many times I have had that passage from St Paul's Epistle to the Romans shoved down my throat by various people trying to condemn homosexual practices. It just doesn't wear any more. I'll say this one more time. St Paul in this letter was condemning straight people who engaged in Temple sex. Hence the abandoning of their natural state. He was not condemning gay people and even if he was, why should we take it any more seriously than his statement that women should have their heads covered or should not speak in the congregations?

If you are a creationist and believe that God created every one of us, he also created the homosexuals. Are you saying that a loving God deliberately created a section of humanity that was gay and then banned it from giving expression to the natural love he created it with? I don’t think so.


Stephen Cash 4 years ago

No it never really was a big deal. The problem is people just taking what they want out of the bible and never really searching the scriptures for the truth. Not only that homosexuality was not a word in the original Greek and Hebrew language. It was added to our modern day English bible. I am posting a link for reference.

http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Stephen.

You are well named, after the first Christian martyr. What you say is the simple truth.

I'll check out the link later on. It promises to be interesting and useful.


jake 4 years ago

The love between David and Jonathan wasn't sexual in nature at all. You are misinterpreting the biblical meaning of Love. The bible was written in Hebrew and Love has many meanings. The original Hebrew love between these two characters was Agape love. This is the love that is a God like love. This was not sexual in meaning at all. Kissing and embracing is widespread between men, but if you take it with Context in mind that was what was proper in these times. God did say in the New and Old testament that homosexuality is forbidden. Now being a liar, pornographer, and drunk is also forbidden in the old and New Testament. In the world we live in (the same world biblical icons lived in) Sin is going to happen! I am a sinner. I am just as guilty as someone who chooses homosexuality. There is no greater or lesser sin! In the end its all rebellion and separation from our creator. The beauty of the New Testement is that Christ was the person who lived the perfect life. He was the Hero I couldn't be! He chose to be the living sacrifice and take the wrath of his father that was intended for us! He didn't deserve any of it. He went to Hell and back again to prove his love for us! We are forgiven and free. We are blameless in the fathers eyes! This doesn't mean we become comfortable with our sin. We need to make a daily habit of being pissed off at what is anti christ! We don't befriend the enemy. We now need to identify who our enemy is. Homosexuals are not my enemies! Drunkards are not who I hate!!! Christ lived and died for those kind! He lived and died for me who separates myself daily due to temptation! He has not abandoned me or you! Our enemy and our fight is against our sinful nature that comes from Satan and his other fallen angels! This world we live in is in fact described as a battle field in the New Testement! I live at a house that lets homosexuals stay nights. We have a guy who came from a welfare family and has been shown such little love that he is deceived by sin that he can only find love in other men! We want to show him the love he's never seen before! hes a friend and a believer in Christ! He hates that he has the tendency to want men! Its still a part of his life. but he's not comfortable living in it. God has set him free! He is just as welcome to God's grace as me or you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Please leave that poor man alone. Don't mess with his head, or his sexuality. It won't work anyway. A real Christian would encourage him to find a boyfriend. That is what Christ would have done.


jake 4 years ago

you're not serious are you? If you deny the truth there isn't anything I can do from here on to make u believe in the truth. U r doing a bad deed by trying to say what Christ would have done when the only thing Christ has done is to warn people against the sin of sexual immorality.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

jake. If Jesus didn't want people to be gay, He shouldn't have made them that way. The only bad deeds that are done are by people who try and mess with others heads by telling them that their God given sexuality is sinful. I've seen the consequences of such actions and it isn't good.


barry b 4 years ago

didn't read ur garbage above, the picture alone made me want to puke!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi barry b.

Which part of the picture made you puke most? Was it the two lovely guys kissing, or their saviour blessing them? It really is a heart-warming vision, isn't it? You need to get over that tendency to puke at the sight of Jesus, because if you do it on Judgement Day, He just might send you to Hell.

Have a nice day.


Anon 4 years ago

Didn't read it, but I read the comments and your replies. A part of me thinks that you're just trying to insult as many people as possible with this kind of thing


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Anon.

At least I don't need to insult you. Your inane comment does that perfectly for me instead.


oceansider 4 years ago

God created sexuality for marriage, and for men and women only in their marriages....He loves us all, but hates sin. God said men should not be with men, and women should not be with women.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJ - New Testament).

*When Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, He forgave us for ALL sins, no matter what those sins are....so, if a person asks Jesus for forgiveness for their sins and repents of those sins, and asks Jesus to come and live inside of them, surrendering all to Him and loving Him above all others, and loving and serving others, then YES, they can still go home to heaven when they die. **Jesus created us as eternal beings...our death here on earth is only the beginning of our eternal life, and if you have belonged to Jesus, if He is the Lord of your life and you love Him, then He will bring you home to Him in heaven when you die.....and if a person dies and had not belonged to Jesus and had not loved Him and lived for Him, then they would not be able to live eternally in heaven with Jesus.....and that would be terribly sad for anyone to have to be separated from Almighty God, their Creator, for all eternity....


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

oceansider.

You need to find a more accurate translation of the Bible. The word "homosexual" was not even invented until the nineteenth century and the inaccurate ascribing of "the sin of Sodom" to homosexuality occured first in the sixth century AD.

If God created sexuality for marriage, He must be in favour of gay marriage. Homosexuality exists throughout his animal kingdom, not just in humans. You seem to believe in a God, who would deliberately create a section of humanity with a sexuality they are forbidden to express, even though the expression of this God given sexuality harms nobody. I don't. That's the difference between us.


SharayaKai 4 years ago

My eyes wore out before finishing all the comments, but one thing stuck out time and time again. "God said". Hmm, the Bible (from the latin biblios, which means collection of books) was written and compiled by man. The Torah or Pentateuch which Christians use as the first five books of The Old Testament was written, presumably, by Moses. Many of the following books are basically journals written by men, revered true, but still men. Same goes for the new testament, aside from the first 5 books and a few of the last books, the majority of "books" are compiled letters from one man. There is not a single book of the Bible with God listed as its author. Not even Jesus bin Joseph of Nazareth, The Christ (which means teacher, master) penned his own story. Much of His tale was recorded decades after his death and I dare anyone of us to relate accurately what transpired in our own lives. Memory is a fickle thing.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 4 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi SharayaKai.

There are rather a lot of comments. This subject seems to bother a lot of people. Just as well that God is not too bothered about it.

I don't think I could agree with you about the provenance of The Bible, but you are entitled to your views.

Thanks for the comment.


Ray 3 years ago

Simple and funny.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Ray.

I'm glad that you can find amusement in a subject that causes hundreds of suicides, of young gay Christians, every year.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Here is but 1 verses. This is in the NT. There are plenty more in the OT.

Matthew 19:11-13

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

11 And he said to them, `All do not receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given;

12 for there are eunuchs who from the mother's womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive [it] -- let him receive.'

13 Then were brought near to him children that he might put hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Lady Guinevere for posting that passage. It is one of the most important ones, and a great comfort to all gay Christians.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Yes Jesus accepted them all and all of us not matter what or who we are or what we do. Notice that it was the disciples that turned them away. That tells me that the disciples were NOT always in agreement with Jesus and after his death....hmmmmm just brings about more questions of what is in the Bible and who influenced it.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

This story from Acts seems to give the opposite impression. I might write an article on it sometime.

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south[a] to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this:

“Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter

and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,

so he opens not his mouth.

33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.

Who can describe his generation?

For his life is taken away from the earth.”

34 And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”[b] 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.

Their was no problem between the disciples and Jesus on the "gay issue". All that comes from later misinterpretation of the texts of the Bible. Deliberate mistranslations have been put into certain passages ever since. The most notorious examples are when certain people cited St Paul as comdemning "Homosexuals", a word which wasn't even invented until the late nineteenth century.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

See Paul is the Anti-Christ. Paul and Jesus never met and Paul often tells the opposite of what Jesus said. Paul was an infiltrator for Rome...period. He was raised that way as a Roman Soldier.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

You don't really like St Paul, do you?


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

No, not really.


MotherWisdom profile image

MotherWisdom 3 years ago from Indiana

Just as an example, mind you, I understand why Jesus did not open His mouth when He was taken into custody and wrongfully accused. People will take anything out of context to justify their actions. I do not agree that the Bible affirms homosexuality. God loves the person, not the "orientation". This goes against what He created, male and female.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MotherWisdom.

How can God love any part of his creation, if he doesn't love the nature he gave it? His must be a very odd form of love. The fact that we were all created in his image is of far more significance than that we were created male and female. How can I, ( a homosexual), not be in his image? He created me, just as surely as he did, my heterosexual parents. Anyway the animal kingdom is full of homosexuality. Is God disgusted by the sexual proclivities of bonobos?


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

MOW, Jesus also did not say go judge anyone for their looks or sexual orientation and most Christians cannot even understand what Jesus stood for to begin with. God made EVERYTHING and it was GOOD. Who are you to say anything different. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN you, who are you to project your fears onto others? If, in the verse I supplied, Jesus did not disapprove of them, why should anyone else. The Disciples did not agree with Jesus on all points. Do you follow Jesus or his disciples? Search your heart. How would you react to someone who was your friend for years and then they came out and told you they were gay? Would you push them away and why? They were a suitable fried before and now---did they turn purple with pink polka dots, or some other form of ridicule that would come from that. Gays...they work just like the rest of us, they think and drive and eat just like the rest of us. Gays don't have sex on their minds all the ime so why do Christians....that is a false front when you are not supposed to be thinking that way all the time either.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Lady Guinevere. You put that very well.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

this has to be the most evil article I have read on here to date.

100+% garbage. Putting God's name on sin is ludicrous


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi celafoe.

You seem to have got up "the wrong side of the bed". I hope there wasn't a big hairy man in it.

If putting God's name on sin is so ludicrous, why do you appear to put it on your own sin of uncharity all the time?


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

i would not bother with you wanting to promote homosexuality as long as you do not try to do it on here or promote it as Godly, this is a Christian forum. We (Christians)are required to judge those and what is professing to be Christian . God will judge you for your support of homosexuality it is not my job. but exposing gross error being promoted in the name of scripture is a requirement for God's people. There is no requirement to be nice to to those who pervert the Word of God.

You may not believe what you see but check out What Jesus had to say to the unGodly jewish leader.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

celafoe I have always understood that this is an international forum, open to all regardless of faith or lack of it.

I am a Christian anyway. If your attitude is anything to go by, I doubt you would recognise Jesus if He were to walk into your room. It is certain He would not know you as one of his followers. Do they not have stones big enough, for you to crawl back under, where you come from?


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

celafoe and your ilk, This is NOT a CHRISTIAN FORUM. It is for EVERYONE NOT ONLY FOR CHRISTIANS.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

No ts title is Religion- The Bible and Jesus Christ. so if you want to write your garbage on here expect to be down on it called on it. I will not this kind of garbage go unchallenged here or anywhere else i see it. But if you want to write it on the queer section i probably wont bother you as I dont go there.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

celafoe. Could you please find someone who can write proper english to ghost-write your comments. Apart from detecting a general stench of nastiness, I cannot make any sense of them.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

celefoe, I am sorry to bear bad news, but 1. you are not God, 2. you do not own this site, 3. You don't have thew right to judge and 4 what the heck are you so scared of? Now I surmise that it would that someone of your sex would come out and approach you. They wouldn't do that. 1. because you are a nasty person who sits on their podium, judging every person whom does not fit their mold. Well for 1 you are Bearing False Witness, which is a sin and according to that Bible of yours that I doubr seriously that you read it states that if you do one kind of sin, you do all of them. Where is the Love They Neighbor As Thyself? Where is the Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do To You? Are you really ready to get back what you are giving out. I doubt it.

God is the ONLY judge and he will judge in his time, not yours or anyone else's.

Once more: This is NOT a Christian Only Site...never was and never will be. If YOU want to write solely for your own edification and to put down everyone who does not follow your guidelines then perhaps you don't belong here. Find someplace that you can be happy with and Love One Another as Jesus did state clearly in that Bible.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Cheers Lady Guinivere.

I agree with all you say here. Sadly some, who call themselves Christians, behave more like Fascists.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

No problem my friend. I hate when fundies get into their heads that they rule the whole world when they can't even tell the truth about what they are "not" reading. I have so many tell me that they read the Bible everyday and then I bring up a scripture that they should have read and then they make an excuse that it means this or that. Clearly they lie about reading the Bible everyday. That is a Lie and bears false witness. I will fight them right back. It's called brainwashing and is a activity of a cult. They don't spread the good of what Jesus wants to spread. They are spreading what their Church wants them to spread and it is a huge difference.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

I have judged no one. I have judged words that were claimed to be scriptural and are not as scripture requires. Thin skinned people like you do not understand the difference and always take it as a personal attack.. Any time and any place that I see scripture mis applied or falsely represented I will attack the misrepresentation. Like it or not. Live with it or do not misrepresent my God and His word.


jacharless profile image

jacharless 3 years ago from Between New York and London

@LadyGuinivere et al. The only minor correction to the op/ed is Saul was not a Roman soldier. Saul was chief assistant to the president of the Sanhedrin with duel citizenship {Israeli & Roman}. At the height of his power, Saul had political connections as deep and wide as Asia and Greece. He readily killed in the name of "God" and had the tehillah to prove it. He saw opportunity on the way to Damascus, Syria, to finalize his quest to become the "lawful" ruler of a new political order --based on the "Way". A position which he would have become the Priest of Rome. This is why he pressed to go to Rome and sway Augustus to convert to "lawful Judaism", using this new sect as basis. As a result of his persistence, Petra, Yon and James were murdered by Rome, yet Saul lived (?).. Odd.

Above all his predecessors, Saul enforced the "Law" of Sin & Death -known the world over as Torah or Scripture. A mandate still practiced today by many churches. In fact, history -and he himself- make note of his zeal for the Law and utmost, immovable belief that every man -Hebrew AND Gentile follow the law to the letter. Saul's ambition led to the death of thousands of people -including 6 of the 12 original disciples. With them out of the way, Saul could build the Church of Rome as he saw fit. history notes Saul was not killed by the Romans, nor the Hebrews. He died an old man under house arrest.

Moshiach made an interesting statement that the "antichrist" {ha-satan, ego} was already in the world even before he was murdered. Many think it was Saul, since he was a teen @ the time of Mosiach ministry. However, what Moshiach speaks of is not a man but the same thing that destroyed Adam -ego.

Under Mosaic Law - Scripture men were forbidden to lay with men and women the same. Under Gentile law anything goes. Never in Moshiach ministry did he condemn or affirm sexual practices because human sexuality restrains them from becoming immortal.

So, the argument for/against homosexuality -male or female- is moot. Sexuality relates to the "Law" of Sin & Death, not the Law of Life. Those seeking immortality let go of the Law of Sin/Death. Those obsessed with the LOSD receive its reward: sin. And what sin brings, death. What is sin again: ego {ha satan, anti-anointing}.

James.


LindaSmith1 3 years ago

What happened to created in God's Image? God even created Satan. Jesus sat with murderers and thieves. How someone is created, even if they have 3 heads, it is between them and their creator.

Those without sin, cast the first stone.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

That's probably the case here Lady Guinivere. I have also seen cases in which people can spend years reading the Bible and can't even see certain passages, because they conflict with their prejudices. It's called "selective blindness".


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I don' have a thin skin celafoe. I just stand up to bullies. If you are so unjudging, could you explain why you use such grossly offensive terms as "the queer section"?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi jacharless.

I'm not certain what sources you use for claiming that St Paul insisted on the letter of the law. The Bible clearly shows that he was the principal mover in removing the requirement to observe the dietary laws and be circumsised in order to gain membership of the new Christian religion. Also, he was beheaded in Rome. How do you explain that?

By the way, who is Moshiach? Do you mean Jesus?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks LindaSmith.

I totally agree.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Celafoe, your words, "i would not bother with you wanting to promote homosexuality as long as you do not try to do it on here or promote it as Godly, this is a Christian forum. We (Christians)are required to judge those and what is professing to be Christian "

See you lie. When yopu just told us that you are not judging...you blatantly lied. Do you realize that? Blind!

James: Where id you get that story.

et al: A person does not change overnight like they said that Paul (and I don't care what other name he chose) did. It does NOT happen. That is why I don't believe that he is a Saint either. That is just Romes ways of getting money from the people.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

its only offensive to those who call God a liar and misinterpret His way to justify their sin. It was and is a normal term for things that were not normal to people of my age . And it is no more offensive to you than what this article is to me.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

celafoe.

Luke 6:42.

"Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye".


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Thank You for this verse Christopher I have used it in and article that I am writing right now: I have started a new article about the learning that I went through in the last year or so. It is a kind of closing for me to the article that I have on Wizzley: http://wizzley.com/intimacy-anorexia-is-tearing-ma...


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Cheers Lady G. I'll have a look at that now.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

celafoe, you know something that is not right with you...he posts Biblical Scripture and you CHOOSE to ignore them. Who is telling you to do this because it certainly isn't God.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

as expected you use scripture out of context. ok. I have wasted enough time. goodby enjoy eternity/

1 Cor 6:9-11

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

NKJV


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

celafoe.

Thanks for your good wishes. I notice that you posted the deliberately mistranslated verse from Corinthians. Your type usually do. It doesn't bother me. I'm used to it. Did you notice that you seem to be prominent among those condemned? You certainly act like a reviler anyway. God notices these things. You might be advised to invest in some asbestos underclothes soon yourself.


Barbara Kay profile image

Barbara Kay 3 years ago from USA

I respect you as a writer, but I think you are way off on this one. Many people love their friends, but that doesn't mean they have sex with them!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Barbara.

Thanks for the comment.

The question with David and Jonathan is really not so much, whether they were "having it off", as would God have really been very bothered, if they were. From my reading of Scripture and my belief in His loving nature, I don't believe he would.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Do any of you realize that the Bible has been manipulated so many times by political leaders that it is a joke as to what is in there in the first place? King James was notorious for doing such as was Constantine and a few others. Why did they omit a lot of the things that Jesus taught? Why are those books heresy? Did you Bible tell you that NOT everything is in that Book? You people use the book as swords to hurt others and you judge and you tell them they are going to hell. Did Jesus not tell you that you do not know what is in another mans heart? You all sicken me to know end. Get a li\fe! Serve Jesus in the way that he said to serve him...LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS YOURSELF. YOU ALL JUST DON'T GET IT.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Go ahead and tell me that I am taking this out of context. It is the whole thing:

1 Corinthians 12

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

12 And concerning the spiritual things, brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant;

2 ye have known that ye were nations, unto the dumb idols -- as ye were led -- being carried away;

3 wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus [is] anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus [is] Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.

4 And there are diversities of gifts, and the same Spirit;

5 and there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord;

6 and there are diversities of workings, and it is the same God -- who is working the all in all.

7 And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit;

8 for to one through the Spirit hath been given a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit;

9 and to another faith in the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healings in the same Spirit;

10 and to another in-workings of mighty deeds; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; and to another [divers] kinds of tongues; and to another interpretation of tongues:

11 and all these doth work the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each severally as he intendeth.

12 For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ,

13 for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink,

14 for also the body is not one member, but many;

15 if the foot may say, `Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body;' it is not, because of this, not of the body;

16 and if the ear may say, `Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body;' it is not, because of this, not of the body?

17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where the hearing? if the whole hearing, where the smelling?

18 and now, God did set the members each one of them in the body, according as He willed,

19 and if all were one member, where the body?

20 and now, indeed, [are] many members, and one body;

21 and an eye is not able to say to the hand, `I have no need of thee;' nor again the head to the feet, `I have no need of you.'

22 But much more the members of the body which seem to be more infirm are necessary,

23 and those that we think to be less honourable of the body, around these we put more abundant honour, and our unseemly things have seemliness more abundant,

24 and our seemly things have no need; but God did temper the body together, to the lacking part having given more abundant honour,

25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same anxiety for one another,

26 and whether one member doth suffer, suffer with [it] do all the members, or one member is glorified, rejoice with [it] do all the members;

27 and ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And some, indeed, did God set in the assembly, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, afterwards powers, afterwards gifts of healings, helpings, governings, divers kinds of tongues;

29 [are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all powers?

30 have all gifts of healings? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

31 and desire earnestly the better gifts; and yet a far excelling way do I shew to you:


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Lady Guinivere. You put that very well.


SwordofManticorE profile image

SwordofManticorE 3 years ago from Burlington

My Father who is the potter, makes us according to His will. Homosexuals do not decide to be gay, they decide the day they come out of the closet, and all the power to them. I was once a right winged christian and condemned some christian homosexuals to hell. I can only ask them now for their forgiveness, as they too are my brothers and sisters under the same Father. It is what it is. Live with it.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Amen to that SwordofManticorE and God bless you.


Nathan Rudolph profile image

Nathan Rudolph 3 years ago from South Hamilton, Massachusetts

2nd Timothy 4:1-5

"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people 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. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Good scripture Nathan. Thanks for posting it. I don't suppose that you intended it to, but it backs up my position very well.

That's exactly what I am trying to do with this article, ie, keep my head and point people towards the truth.


Nathan Rudolph profile image

Nathan Rudolph 3 years ago from South Hamilton, Massachusetts

2 Timothy 4:3-4

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Nathan. If you are trying to make a point, do so in your own words. Quoting Bible passages, without any explanation, doesn't advance any understanding. It just makes the quoter seem a little bit odd.


Justin 3 years ago

This is sick! And your manipulation of the word disgusts me, to say you see nowhere in the bible where Joesph was married, hmmm does he not take Mary as his wife? And to say the robe of many colors might be telling us something. . . you are sick and twisted! Gay rights activists only adopted the Rainbow, The first rainbow flag was designed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a San Francisco artist, in response to calls by activists for a symbol for the community. Baker used the five-striped “Flag of the Race” as his inspiration, and designed a flag with eight stripes: pink, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. These colors were intended to represent respectively: sexuality, life, healing, sun, nature, art, harmony, and spirit. Baker dyed and sewed the material for the first flag himself - reminiscent of Betsy Ross and the creation of the US Flag. This is all FOOLISH RHETORIC at best! For man to lay with man is a stench in the nostrils of GOD and an abomination! Explain that away!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi Justin. Come back when you have learned your Bible properly and you know the difference between the Joseph in the Old Testament and his namesake in the New Testament. As regards things being abomination, so is a garment of different materials or a child being cheeky to it's parents. You barely need half a brain to realise that the Leviticus laws in the Bible are ridiculous and hopelessly out of date. Some people just use the homosexual prohibition rule to back up their prejudice, but they ignore the ones that don't suit them.


celafoe profile image

celafoe 3 years ago from Planet earth. between the oceans

talk about not knowing the bible. the old testament laws are not only out date they have been done away with for over 2000 years. I anyone does not know the bible it is you. and twisting and misrepresenting it as you do is certainly and abomination before God. No queers are allowed in heaven and there are NONE that are Christian. yes some unGodly churches accept them but God does not unless they repent and change


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

I am sorry to interject here but all thses laws and the Bible were made for the 12 tribes of ISRAEL. Nothing is ever said about any other person, belief, creed or such. There are many other nations besides just ISRAEL. ISRAEL is but a very small country in a much larger Earth that we ALL inhabit. Who chose this very small nation and why? Was it really the God of the planet or the God of a single dictator or priest who thought that they should be the only one....on this small area of the whole world? There is a single passage that was written in the Bible and that gets me to thinking about the whole written word. It states that all is not in the Bible, yet people preach just as if that small Bible with those select few letters and stories is the whole of everything. I bet if the Bible was fully intact and full of every written word (which IS the word of God btw) it would be bigger than the biggest Webster's Dictionary...maybe even bigger than that. All of those books at the library of Alexander were burned......why.....because ROME did not want the true knowledge to wash over their filthy, jealous monetary system. That has never changed to this day. ROME still wants to own the whole planet and if you all cannot see that then you are blind.

Homeosexuality goes beyond a man lying with a man that is only mentioned ONE time in the OLD Testament. Jesus tells us to love one another as we love ourselves..................HE did go telling us to weed us out to whom WE wish to honor or love. Like Chris says, get to read your whole Bible, not just single sentences as used as swords and are called scriptures. The person whom made the books like that (scriptures) was out of their mind. Oh which reminds me how do you know who is in their right mind and who is not and who is homosexual when you site by many on your trip to work or i your office or doing shopping and in public.................Angels Unawares.........................how do you know that you are not talking to Jesus just as Jesus states right in that Bible? A bunch of hypocrits!


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

"No queers are allowed in heaven and there are NONE that are Christian. yes some unGodly churches accept them but God does not unless they repent and change".

I hate to tell you this celafoe, but I am homosexual and christian. As regards your rubbishy statement about the level of residency in Heaven of "queers", there is a slight problem. Homosexuals are exactly as God made them, so unless He intends going to Hell Himself, He must welcome them into the heavenly realm.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

A man cannot lie with another man.....hmmmm....what about a woman lying with another woman?

All those who profess that they know what the laws are in heaven.........how do you know..have you been there and in the government there is there and know such things? Hypocrits.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Cheers Lady Guinevere. Thanks for your support.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

There is now a book available that proves with irrefutable and verifiable fact that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality.

http://bookstore.xlibris.com/AdvancedSearch/Defaul...

The book, titled "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality" and written by Wayne Gray represents forty years of scholarly research. Finally, here is the book that we have all waited for, one that answers each and every question that has ever been asked about the Bible and sexual orientation. It uses the original language of the Old and New Testaments to set the foundation for proper translation of each and every passage that has ever been misconstrued to attack gays and lesbians. From the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, to the famous verse of Leviticus 18:22 and on through the writings of Paul in the New Testament, there is not one verse that is left un-researched and thoroughly explained. Once you have read this book, you will have every proof there is to say with no doubt left, the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality...ever!

God made no mistakes, He made every person who exists, and He loves His gay children just as much as He loves His non-gay children. Woe be to those who abuse the Bible to teach hatred, division and war. From such people, turn away. They do not show the love of Jesus Christ by their actions, and God is not the author of their shame. Jesus said "Whosoever will," and He did not list any exclusions. If you love the Lord, and you are homosexual, He loves you just the way He made you. He made no mistakes in His design for your life, so live in the joy that you are redeemed, you belong to Him, and He loves you just the way He made you.

Read the book today. You will be so glad that you did.

Brian


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks Hanavee.

I completely agree and thanks for telling me about the book. I shall put it on my reading list.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

christopheranton,

I'm glad that you will be reading the book. I think everybody who has had to combat the rabid homophobes should have this book, because those bigots enjoy using the same old tired misinterpretations to keep the myth going that God hates gays. They hate gays, not God, and the blame needs to be put squarely on the shoulders of the bigots who preach hate instead of the love of Jesus Christ. They have distorted the message of Jesus for far too long. Now that this scholarly book is available, I sincerely hope and pray that people will read and study this book, then form discussion groups to share the truths contained therein. Each person who reads this book should promise to tell five others to do the same, and those five to then tell five more, and so on until there is a large enough education movement going forward to wipe out anti-gay ignorance. There is no truth in bigotry, and anti-gay prejudice is not supported anywhere in the Bible. This book shows every proof for the correct interpretation for every passage in the Bible that has ever been misinterpreted to seem to condemn homosexuality.

The Bible says that we are to know the truth, and the truth shall set us free. Here at last is the complete truth - the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality.

Brian


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

What you suggest is a very good idea Hanavee. I can think of a few people who would like to read the book and quite a few more who would need to.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

Hanavee ~ "He loves His gay children just as much as He loves His non-gay children. Woe be to those who abuse the Bible to teach hatred"

I wasn't interested to get back into this and I've not checked any of the notices of 'new comment' that I've received for a good while - but this was the only notice I got in my updates, so I checked it out . . . and I really just want to ask, or propose a different, unbiased, perception ~

When Jesus charged the religious men of His day with hypocrisy, was He declaring that He hated them? Was He demonstrating Himself to be a Hypocriphobe? When He admonished the woman at the well was He telling her He hated her and was He being a fornicatiphobe?

A Christian can recognize that the Bible asserts practicing homosexual activity to be contrary to God's will without being a homophobe, asserting that God hates Gays, or practicing or promoting hate. My brother is a Gay non-believer and my sister is a divorced Christian, I love and respect both of them but recognize both of them to be flawed in the eyes of God . . . I also count neither of them to be nearly so flawed as myself.

My brother established and operates a foundation to promote and accomplish the legalization of same-sex marriage . . . the reason I don't contribute to that fund is not because I hate Gays, am afraid of Gays, or in any manner think I am better or that God loves me more than Gays - I don't contribute because I believe it is clear in the Bible why God established marriage, and same-sex marriage simply is outside His plan and purpose . . . but I fully support any same-sex couple's right to any benefit (job opportunity, medical benefits, tax requirements, etc) I might have - a same-sex union simply is not what the Bible asserts to be marriage (according to the purpose and reason for the establishment of marriage).

At any rate, marriage laws aside, believing the Bible sets forth a prohibition against homosexual practice does not at all suggest that one must be a homophobe or that God hates Gays - you're projecting your own mess (how you feel toward those you disagree with, etc) onto God and others.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Hi MickeySr.

It's good to hear from you again. It must be a year at least since our paths last crossed.

I don't propose to fight this issue with you again and I'm certain Hanavee is more than capable of fighting his own corner.

I would suggest though that you read the book he linked to. It really is very informative about the Bible and even though it's conclusions may not be to your taste I'm sure, as a fair person, you would be prepared to consider an alternative viewpoint to the one you presently hold.

This is the link.

http://bookstore.xlibris.com/AdvancedSearch/Defaul

If you have an e reader, or can read it on your computer, it's a lot cheaper than buying the printed version.

Take care.

Chris.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

. . . well, I hope none of us are approaching this as a "fight" - I don't assume I'm right in any manner that suggests to me I ought to fight those who see things differently . . . my interest is to offer my own understanding as I seek to better understand the views of those who see things differently.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySr.

I use the word "fight" in it's purely symbolic meaning. The term "debate" might be more accurate. Anyway, if you truly want to understand my views, read the book. There is nothing in it that I disagree with.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

MickeySr,

I wrote, which you quoted: "He loves His gay children just as much as He loves His non-gay children. Woe be to those who abuse the Bible to teach hatred" And I stand by those words. God is not the author of hate, ignorance is. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ teach us to hate anyone, yet every time I read about someone murdering a gay person, or causing a gay person to commit suicide, the argument has always been traced back to "God hates gays," or "The Bible is against them." As a biblical scholar who has read the Bible through entirely many times over, both in English and the original languages, I am no newcomer to what people preach against and what they use for ammunition. I was raised in the Fundamentalist Christian faith, my father was a Pentecostal preacher, and I was educated in a Christian university. So, I say with authority that Jesus never taught hate, nor was He militant in His teachings. Therefore, we who strive to follow His teachings need to check ourselves when our zeal gets in the way of our compassion. Knowing this, God will deal, as He has promised, with those who harm His children. It is not our might, but His that will ultimately be shown to those who choose to go against the teachings of His Son, Jesus Christ, and Jesus never condemned homosexuals, nor did He tell anyone else to do so.

You state that "... I really just want to ask, or propose a different, unbiased, perception..." but I have read your post, and it offers, unfortunately, biased opinion that is not based in proper Theology. It merely reflects the same biased teachings that I was taught as I was growing up in the Church, that being, that God condemns homosexuals. This line of thinking began centuries after the death of Jesus Christ, did not begin in the Church, and gradually was formulated by political figures within the Roman Empire. Once it began, circa A.D. 300, it took less than 100 years further to so engulf society that the religious leaders in monasteries began to add their twisted views on sexual conduct, the result being mass campaigns against ordinary citizens that spread throughout Europe. Laws were enacted, and sorrows and horrors of unspeakable proportions were unleashed upon innocent victims. Eventually, these corruptions were accepted and taught as laws, as commandments of God, and the rest is centuries of terrible sins against God's children for a bigotry that is not founded in the Bible at all. This ignorance is still being taught and promoted by the Church at large, even though many churches have begun to see the error and are trying to show the truth of proper Scripture reading. It is time for the ignorance to end, and it is time for the truth to be preached. Read the book I recommended. The facts are all there.

You wrote: "When Jesus charged the religious men of His day with hypocrisy, was He declaring that He hated them? Was He demonstrating Himself to be a Hypocriphobe? " My friend, Jesus was not admonishing righteous men, but "religious men" whose religion was, as Jesus put it, like white-washed sepulchers. And He offered them the Truth, just as I offer it to you, that truth being that Jesus does not condemn homosexuality, nor does the Bible. Just as the men that Jesus admonished had a "form of godliness, but denied the power thereof" by virtue of their disconnect with the Truth of God, so God expects me, as a minister of the Truth to admonish those who teach falsehood and harm His children by so doing. There is a vast difference between admonishing someone and hating someone, and the vast majority of those teaching anti-gay prejudices do so with a venom that is unmatched by anything Jesus ever said or did.

You wrote: "A Christian can recognize that the Bible asserts practicing homosexual activity to be contrary to God's will without being a homophobe, asserting that God hates Gays, or practicing or promoting hate."

No, I think teaching anti-homosexual philosophy is contrary to the Bible, because the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is a sin, and teaching this ignorance makes humans suffer. What you are preaching is not truth, but perpetuated ignorance that was handed down to us from centuries ago. Anti-homosexual teachings did not exist before A.D. 300, and homosexuality is nowhere condemned in the Bible. Spend time prayerfully reading the book I recommended. You will find that all of the bigotries taught by anti-gay "christians" are not supported by correct interpretation of the Bible, and I am aware of all of the passages in the Bible that have been misinterpreted to make the case for homophobes. Have you ever asked yourself where the bigotry came from? I mean, you weren't born with prejudice. You, like me, were taught this, and we accepted it, because those who were older and seemingly wiser than us taught us this bigotry...and they even seemed to make the Bible back it up. I once believed the same bigotry. I preached it. Then, God showed me the Truth, and I was required to study further so that I could speak with fact and not rumor. The Bible does not condemn gays. Time we prayerfully opened our hearts to what Jesus said and close the doors on ignorance that has guided too many people to act accordingly.

Brian


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Very well said Hanavee and thanks again for your support. I hope people get to read your comments here, and I hope plenty of them read that book.

http://bookstore.xlibris.com/AdvancedSearch/Defaul

I've started it and find it very well written and educational.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Christopheranton,

Thank you for those kind comments. You'll find that this book answers every question about homosexuality and the Bible, and unlike some books I've read, this one deals in facts that leave no doubt. All too often, I have read books on the subject, and they would use such terms as "this could mean," or "let's suppose that," and when they do this, not only do they suggest that they are not sure of what they are saying, but their statements become hopeful wishing rather than declarations of proof for their ideas. As you read this book, you are going to see every point proven beyond a doubt, and it will encourage everyone who reads this book to start speaking out for the truth, that being that God made us all, that He loves us all the way He made us, and that we can have peace in this world if we learn to love one another the way Jesus taught us. Time to set aside bigotry, division and hate.

Isn't it sad how those who call themselves Christians often use the Bible to back up unfounded prejudice? Rather than learn the truth, they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to hear the word of God, professing themselves wise, they become as fools. There are many who will stop their ears from hearing this truth, and they will, instead, continue to stubbornly stand on the ignorance that was passed down to them, no matter how much this ignorance continues to spread hate and sorrow in this world.

My sincerest prayer is that everyone who reads this book then takes a sincere pledge to spread its truths until we wipe out the last vestiges of hate.

Brian


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

It is indeed sad that the Prince of Peace is being used to promote hatred and bigotry throughout the world. Christians and Theists are not the only offenders though. Homophobia knows no borders, either geographical or cultural. It's a real plague on humankind.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. He meant to get people thinking for themselves.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

That is very true Lady Guinevere.


Mylindaminka 3 years ago

Второй вариант – намазать руки кремом или маслом и завернуть их в полотенце, намоченное в очень горячей воде. Купи холодные ножницы (правда стоят они не дешево) в специальном магазине, где продают инструменты для салонов красоты, они прослужат тебе не один год. «Смерть» ножницам и пилочке, это когда мужчина нашел их на полочке и подстриг себе ногти на ногах. Спасение одно – прятать.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I wish you had done that comment in english. I could have answered it then.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

Hanavee,

Your whole point (here with me) seems to focus and address nothing but this one singular point; if anyone sees this differently than you have come to see it, it can only mean they are following an unreasonable bias, they are not honestly or thoroughly examining evidence they are merely acting-out some hatred and/or fear handed-over to them by narrow-minded teachers. You haven't really responded to much that I said at all, your reply seems little more than a knee-jerk reaction, falling back to cataloged arguments whether they address what I said or not. I ask you to honestly consider where the bias is here . . . you said ~

"I was raised in the Fundamentalist Christian faith, my father was a Pentecostal preacher, and I was educated in a Christian university" and "I once believed the same bigotry"

I was not raised with any religious tradition whatsoever. I did not come to the Bible or Christianity through any organization or individuals. When I was young I was in the midst of the civil rights movement and enthusiastic about the hippie culture's call to accept everyone as they are, peace & love were (are) at the core of my identity (whether anyone was watching or not). I am not asserting that the Bible presents homosexual practices as contrary to God's will because I have a bias against gays, because I don't like gays, or because I hate things not on my side of things - I assert that the Bible presents homosexual practices as contrary to God's will because I believe that is what an honest, unbiased, well-studied reading of the text reveals.

Hanavee, you quoted me saying "When Jesus charged the religious men of His day with hypocrisy, was He declaring that He hated them? Was He demonstrating Himself to be a Hypocriphobe?" and then you replied ~

"My friend, Jesus was not admonishing righteous men, but 'religious men' whose religion was, as Jesus put it, like white-washed sepulchers. And He offered them the Truth, just as I offer it to you"

You are not addressing my point at all, you are just skipping past the point to make your own. The point is, there are certainly things in the Bible that Jesus condemns, things He sets forth as wrong and that men should not practice . . . as an example, Jesus charged the religious men of His day with hypocrisy, and Jesus told a prostitute to 'sin no more', and Jesus said when we lust we are committing adultery in our heart, etc, etc - does that mean that Jesus was, or we are practicing hate, that He and we are Hypocriphobes, prostitutiphobes, adultriaphobes? I'm asking you, does standing for one thing and opposed to another thing necessitate hate? You insist that if I tell you I believe the Bible stands opposed to homosexual practices that I hate you - do you hate me because I'm a heterosexual?

It seems to me (and I mean that, it seems to me) that you are so sure you are right (you are so fundamentalist and bigoted about this) that you are equally certain that any who see things differently must not merely be wrong, but they have to be bad people, hateful people, for your position to stand. I understand and am familiar with your Biblical and historic references, but we disagree, I think an honest and thorough reading of the text and of history demonstrate that, while homosexuality was treated very differently in the Greek and Roman cultures that defined the ancient world than it was in subsequent years and cultures, the Bible and history are clear that the OT, Jesus, His apostles, and His historic church counted homosexual practices as contrary to God's plan and will for His creation - the opposition to homosexual practices was not a hatred or bias that gradually developed, it was a rule of faith and life that gradually supplanted the Greek/Roman culture as did humility, tolerance, charity, etc.


Mylindaminka 3 years ago

Однако не все знают, что история международного аэропорта «Шереметьево» началась еще 1 сентября 1953 года, когда вышло Постановление Совета Министров СССР о строительстве Центрального аэродрома ВВС в районе населенного пункта Чашниково в Подмосковье. Изначально аэропорт Шереметьево строился как главный аэродром военно-воздушных сил Советской армии. Свое название будущий аэропорт получил по двум расположенным неподалеку объектам ? жилому поселку Шереметьевскому и одноименной станции Савеловской железной дороги.


Mylindaminka 3 years ago

А сколько фобий породил современный кинематограф! Всевозможные фильмы ужасов с реалистичными спецэффектами и мистические триллеры способствуют развитию следующих фобий: боязнь пауков, акул, инопланетян, боязнь сойти с ума (такие фильмы, как «Игры разума», «Паук» и многие другие), боязнь клоунов (например, страшный клоун-монстр Пеннивайз из фильма «Оно» по Стивену Кингу), боязнь телефонных звонков (японский триллер «Звонок»).


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySR.

You have a very odd idea of what constitutes "humility, tolerance, charity etc". I'll leave it to Hanavee to answer the rest of your comments, that is, if he notices them.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I'll have to use translation software to find out what these other comments are saying, unless the writer of them is prepared to render them into english for me.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

christopheranton,

You keep making statements that the Bible condemns homosexuality, when in fact, it does not. Therein lies your problem, because you are relying on a centuries-old intentional bias and bigotry that was invented during the reign of Emperor Constantine and evolved into what it is today through constant additions over those centuries. I don't blame you for thinking that your biases are correct, but, as hard as it is for you to accept, they are wrong. Simply read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality" from Xlibris, and you will see all the proofs you need to understand what the Bible really says about the subject. If you can read that book and still think that the Bible condemns homosexuals, then you would have to be intentionally blind. Read the book, then come back and comment.

Brian

A Child of God


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ "You have a very odd idea of what constitutes 'humility, tolerance, charity etc'".

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here; are you asserting that the ancient Greek/Roman culture practiced humility, tolerance, charity, etc, and that Christianity exercised no influence on them in this regard, or are you asserting that Jesus and later His followers/church did not advance humility, tolerance, charity, etc, as a virtue, or are you suggesting something else altogether?


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

Brian ~ "you are relying on a centuries-old intentional bias and bigotry that was invented during the reign of Emperor Constantine and evolved into what it is today through constant additions over those centuries"

Do you mean, by "constant additions" the gradual shifts in thinking, or are you referencing a series of alterations to the original text of Scripture? Basically I asking, is your notion that Jesus and the Bible are favorable to homosexual practices premised on a foundation that the text of Scripture has been corrupted? Do you acknowledge that the contemporary English translations and versions we have today present homosexual practices as contrary to God's will, and that your assertion is that these are flawed and inaccurate corruptions of a text and teaching that approved of homosexual practices?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

What I am saying is that Jesus advanced the virtues you cited. Most of His followers do not, unless you call trying to force some people to reject the very core of their existence "humility, tolerance, charity etc". I do not do so. I find the practice of heterosex personally repugnant, but I don't go round telling those who engage in it that they are sinning. "live and let live" is my attitude to those people.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

The contemporary English versions of the Bible, where they use the term "Homosexual" are actually sinning against truth, since that word wasn't even invented until 1859 AD. They are deliberately full of mistranslations, put there to bolster the prejudices of their translators. On the issue of homosexuality, they bear as much relation to God's will as I do to a dinosaur's rear end. That is a big ZERO. Sorry for the caps. I feel they are necessary here.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ certainly there are evil folks all around, and anyone advancing hate and/or violence against others is practicing evil not Christianity . . . but setting hatred and violence aside, we're not talking about those guys and that kind of evil, someone standing on a position that counts something to be wrong if that in fact do believe that it is wrong is no evidence of a lack of humility, tolerance, charity etc. If I believe theft or rape or gossip, etc, are wrong, I'm not being arrogant or intolerant or malicious to protect victims from those who would do them harm. I recognize the arguments that, once people believed slavery was ok and homosexual practices have no victims, etc, but those are response to another point, the larger argument - just now that point is, someone standing on what they believe to be the truth is not necessarily lacking humility, tolerance, charity etc . . . it's not arrogant or intolerant or malicious to believe that murder is wrong or adultery is wrong, etc, and it's not necessarily arrogant or intolerant or malicious if someone believes that homosexual practices are wrong. You may not at all like their belief, but to simply insist that they hold and practice that belief because they lack humility, tolerance, and/or charity is, in itself, arrogant, intolerant, and/or malicious. Right?


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~

I'm not sure you can reasonably say that a translation is "sinning against truth" if it uses the term 'homosexual' when translating a passage like "the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another" . . . I wouldn't insert 'homosexual' into that passage, I would prefer to stay as literal, word-for-word, as the text presents itself - but I wouldn't say using a word that holds and conveys the same meaning as the text is sinning against truth just because that word didn't exist at the time the text was originally written . . . if that were a reasonable argument than the work of translating would be flat-out pointless, disabled, paralyzed. But again, I would personally use a translation that used 'homosexual', without some side note and reference to the original text.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySr.

If you could just see the real harm that is being caused to people all the time, by the attitudes you hold, that would be good as it might prompt you to rethink some of them. Do you never give a thought to all those young persons who commit suicide, because they are told that their natural feelings are anathema to God? You really do need to read the book that Hanavee has mentioned. If you are a reasonable person, you will be changed by doing so. The only question is, are you a reasonable person? I would like to think that you are.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ but, you don't know what my attitude is - my attitude is one of love and tolerance and humility, I want to understand the hurt and the hopes of others and I certainly don't want to ever hinder anyone else's happiness. The issue here isn't attitudes, it's truth and personal beliefs. My attitude, say, regarding the two brothers who detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon is that it is tragic that those young men threw their lives away and were seduced by such an ugly scheme and violent plot - but my belief regarding the truth of the circumstance is, I'm glad they were stopped, even killed, before they could harm any others. I don't delight that the older brother was killed, it's a tragedy, but I can't set truth aside because it could very likely end in his death.

My attitude toward gay people is my attitude toward all people, I hope they know God through Jesus and that they conform to the call to love God and serve His people and practice kindness to their neighbor. If I see that my opposition to theft causes some to have very little, should I announce I approve of stealing? If adulterers feel ashamed or embarrassed because I count their actions a corruption of their vows should I assure them it's ok and they should have sex with whoever and whenever they please? There is a difference between attitudes and beliefs, between how we feel about things and what we count to be the truth - and you can't set aside or diminish truth based on feelings or attitudes.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

"My attitude toward gay people is my attitude toward all people, I hope they know God through Jesus and that they conform to the call to love God and serve His people and practice kindness to their neighbor".

In what way do gay people not do that anyway? Are you saying that I do not love God because my nature inclines me to go to bed with other men. Are you saying that God will only accept love from those who conform sexually to the heterosexual model? Do you not worry that you are limiting the love of God? Why did God create gay people, or let them evolve, if He was going to disaprove of them expressing a sexuality that he gave them?

You probably expect gay people to lead celibate lives? In what sense does it conform with the notion of a just God, that He would lay an extra burden on a whole section of His human creation?

If God demands of me that I must either deny the reality of the nature, He gave me, by pretending to be heterosexual; or live a loveless and sexless life, then God is a trickster and not a loving Father. Such a deity does not deserve love. If that is what He requires, I reject Him.

Fortunately, I do not believe He is like that. God loves me as I am and does not want me to change. Does He want you to do so instead?


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

MickeySr,

You are comparing normal people to murderers. Murderers make the decision to murder. Gays are normal, not deviates. They are not heterosexuals who chose to be homosexual any more than you could chose to be a different sexual orientation. You compare gays to adulterers, which they are not. Sexual orientation is what it is, genetic, immutable, and the Bible does not condemn any sexual orientation. Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality," from Xlibris, and you wills see all the proofs that you need for what I am saying here.

Brian

A Child of God


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I doubt very much if MickeySr will read the book. I would love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.


kentuckywriter267 profile image

kentuckywriter267 3 years ago from Hodgenville, KY

The Devil really has you fooled Hanavee. First of all, If you paid for the book that you are trying to sell - then you just wasted your money. Second, if you believe what is in that book you are duped, twisted, and most surely deceived. and third, surely not last, but, you have never read the Bible itself, because if you did you wouldn't be spewing all this stupid, twisted, unfounded filth about some book that only the devil would write.

You start out by first trying to disprove the true reason for God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and putting the words of the author to work and not even your own is pretty pathetic. Here is what the Bible says in Genesis 19;

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

And in Jude 7 - 8 it is verified as to the sin that is an abomination to the Lord;

7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

Now I don't know what you think Defiling the Flesh is but in my book it is Entering the Poop Shoot from the outside with a fleshly object. lol. In other-words Homosexual behavior. And the Reason Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed was because the men and women were have immoral sex.

God said to be fruitful and multiply not be fruity and full of flesh.... From another man......


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

"Now I don't know what you think Defiling the Flesh is but in my book it is Entering the Poop Shoot from the outside with a fleshly object. lol. In other-words Homosexual behavior. And the Reason Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed was because the men and women were have immoral sex.

God said to be fruitful and multiply not be fruity and full of flesh.... From another man......"

The above is a perfect example of the abuse thrown at gay people all the time by so called Christians. Very mature and Christlike, (I don't think).


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Kentuck, you can't read the original Bible either. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because they were selling their daughters as sex slaves not because of any homosexual acts.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

This is one you forgot, (or deliberately omitted), kentuckywriter267

Ezekiel 16:49

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy".

There are also plenty more quotations which disprove your bigoted opinions. Remember that.

Perhaps you are the one doing the Devil's work?


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

Hanavee ~ "You are comparing normal people to murderers."

Havanee, I'm not trying to be unkind or to light upon another issue altogether, but you seem to perpetually miss the point, you don't follow the logical building of one idea onto the next . . . which for me, is no small matter - how can I trust that your handling of the Scripture text is any more analytically sound than your handling of our discussion? My inclination, from your logical mishaps in our talks, is to suspect that your capacity (or attention) to soundly apprehend and exposit what the Biblical text is presenting.

I was not comparing homosexuality with murder or theft or anything of the sort - I even qualified my argument saying ~

"I recognize the arguments that, once people believed slavery was ok and homosexual practices have no victims, etc, but those are response to another point, the larger argument - just now that point is, someone standing on what they believe to be the truth is not necessarily lacking humility, tolerance, charity etc"

My point wasn't at all that homosexuals are as bad as murders so we should all be opposed to homosexuality - my point was that it is absurd to continually assert that anyone who sees things differently than you must undoubtedly be a biased, ill-informed, homophobe. As in, if I believe that the Bible asserts that murder is wrong, I'm not necessarily lacking humility, tolerance, charity etc, if I count murder to be contrary to God's will - in that same line of logic (not suggesting homosexuals are all murders or just as bad as murders, etc, but using the same logical construct), if I believe that the Bible asserts that homosexual practices are wrong, I'm not necessarily lacking humility, tolerance, charity etc, if I count homosexual practices to be contrary to God's will.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySr.

As regards the issue of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour, God has no option but to approve; as He made us, (or let us evolve), exactly as we are. Unless He wants to be considered the ultimate Divine Hypocrite, He has no choice in the matter.

I notice you are side-stepping the invitation to read the book recommended by Hanavee. Are you worried that perhaps you might be wrong in your assertions?


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ you quote me saying ~

"My attitude toward gay people is my attitude toward all people, I hope they know God through Jesus and that they conform to the call to love God and serve His people and practice kindness to their neighbor".

. . . and then you reply ~

"In what way do gay people not do that anyway? Are you saying that I do not love God because my nature inclines me to go to bed with other men."

I didn't say that (that you do not love God) and didn't suggest that. You challenged or held in suspect my attitude toward gay people, and I stated that my attitude toward gay people is the same as my attitude toward all people . . . all people, me, you, gay, straight, all people should know God through Jesus and conform to the call to love God and serve His people and practice kindness to their neighbor. "In what way do gay people not do that anyway?" . . ? . . in the same way all of fail to do it. You want to make this a gay issue, a 'them' and 'us' issue, you want to cast this as anyone who holds that the Bible presents homosexual practices to be contrary to God's will can only be a homophoe, must certainly hate and fear gays, etc, etc.

My sister is divorced, I believe that is contrary to God's will - but I don't hate my sister, I don't fear divorced people are going to harm my own marriage in some manner . . . I simply read in Scripture that God's will is that we marry once and for all or stay single & celibate. And, because I point-out that murder or rape or divorce or whatever is against God's will doesn't at all mean or indicate that I imagine I am free from anything in my own life that is against God's will . . . to me, the 'us' and 'them' is not gays and straights, murderers and non-murders, etc, etc, the 'us' and 'them' is those who know God through Jesus and those who reject Jesus and do not know God.

"If God demands of me that I must either deny the reality of the nature, He gave me, by pretending to be heterosexual; or live a loveless and sexless life, then God is a trickster and not a loving Father."

Just because someone asserts they were born gay, that they are genetically assigned gay, that doesn't mean that, because they were born that way it must certainly be ok to be that way, or that God's high call to holiness cannot be expected of them - all of us are 'born that way' . . . to assert that because someone is born gay proves God wants them to be gay or that homosexual practices are affirmed in the Bible as within God's will, is to fully misapprehend the message of the gospel - we are all born 'that way', every drunk, every gossip, every murderer, etc, etc, can just as easily assert that 'God made me this way'.


kentuckywriter267 profile image

kentuckywriter267 3 years ago from Hodgenville, KY

I am not buying some book at that price for any reason. I am not gay, nor will be. But, if you want to know facts then take a look at this post;

http://testimonyandprayer.wordpress.com/2013/04/11...

I posted this to finish the subject on the Bible and Homosexuality. I do not approve of it and will only teach that. As for you Lady, there were many reason why Sodom and Gomorrah and neighboring cities got destroyed. But you cannot deny that Lot was offering his virgin daughters in place of the Angels because the men were wanting to rape them.

Now if that is not sin than I don't know what is. The Bible does not approve of gay sex, it condemns it. I am not some drama queen or king and will not argue over it. But these words will not come back VOID. God will see to it. I am not the one you have to answer to when you die, God is. It's Your Life, Just know that I told you so.... Thats right I said it and Ill say it again. I Told You So.........


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ as to the book suggested; I read very little of contemporary opinion, whether my assumption is that I might disagree or agree with it . . . I read ancient works and the Reformers & Puritans and a few selected favorites, and that, not very often.

As to "God has no option but to approve; as He made us"; do you believe the Scripture regarding the fall, do you not agree that God made everyone, including thieves and adulterers, etc? Can a man who slanders his neighbor reasonably announce 'God made me, so if I feel I cannot resist slandering others, how can God fault me?'? The gospel message is that everybody is corrupt . . . there are none who are, because God made man, just as they ought to be and should follow their inclinations and appetites and desires, etc. Forget the whole gay debate or an interpretation that asserts God affirms homosexual practices - the idea that because God made us He is unjust to fault us for our character and choices, etc, simply runs contrary to the whole point of the incarnation and redemption.

I'm heterosexual, and I really enjoy sex, I have 6 kids, I really enjoy sex - so, if my wife is away for a few weeks and I really am in the mood and so I sleep with a co-worker or neighbor, etc, can I tell God 'You have no right to judge me, You made me this way'?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

"Just because someone asserts they were born gay, that they are genetically assigned gay, that doesn't mean that, because they were born that way it must certainly be ok to be that way, or that God's high call to holiness cannot be expected of them - all of us are 'born that way' . . . to assert that because someone is born gay proves God wants them to be gay or that homosexual practices are affirmed in the Bible as within God's will, is to fully misapprehend the message of the gospel - we are all born 'that way', every drunk, every gossip, every murderer, etc, etc, can just as easily assert that 'God made me this way'."

There is no easy way to say this MickeySr. In the above quotation you are spouting absolute rot. Nobody was ever born a drunk, a gossip or a murderer. 15% of all human beings are born genetically gay. Try to get it right please.

I'm pleased to hear that you have six children. You must have had quite a fulfilling sex life and I hope you still do.

Why did God, Who made me as I am, just as surely as He made you as you are, give you license to have a healthy "lovelife" and forbid me to have any at all? It does not make any sense that he would do so. Not to me at any rate. Was I given an extra hurdle do jump over, in order to achieve salvation? That's what you are saying. And don't tell me that I am free to have a fulfilling sex life, if it is with a woman. Even you must know that is rubbish. It cannot happen. Women are lovely creatures, but to me, they are sexually revolting. It has never been any other way. They just don't "float my boat". God made me this way. Why?

BTW. I knew you would wimp out of reading that book. You appear to be terrified of learning new things.

What possible level of education can you possibly expect to get from reading books by the "Reformers and Puritans"? If that is where you get your opinions, I'm surprised you are not advocating burning witches.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

kentuckywriter267.

I read the article, you linked to. It prompted me to ask this question. Was Lot stupid? He must have been if he was offering his daughters to homosexuals for sex. If he had lived among the inhabitants of Sodom and knew they were gay, surely he should have known that offering them his daughters was a pointless exercise. I can only conclude that the men of Sodom were not homosexuals, (at least not like any I have known). I refer you again to the passage from Ezekiel, which I quoted above and which you appear to have ignored. It provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for what the sin of Sodom was. Christian homophobes prefer to ignore it though.

Don't forget that you will also have to answer to God as well. You had better be sure you have all the right answers.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ "Nobody was ever born a drunk, a gossip or a murderer. 15% of all human beings are born genetically gay."

Scientifically, we simply do not know this yet. Human sexuality is more complex than simply registering if an XX chromosomal structure or an XY chromosomal structure produces a male or female - those (on either side of the 'genetically gay' debate) will leap to whatever 'evidence' that might assure them that their already assumed view is correct, but factually, we do not yet know if homosexuality is a purely genetic, purely experiential, or mixture of both circumstance.

But christopheranton, certainly you're familiar with recent assertion that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism, gambling addiction, some have a much more intense libido while others never really have an interest in sexual activity, etc, etc. We don't know how the brain, and genetic information, relates to feelings and character and choices we make, etc . . . we can measure hormonal and brain activity when people feel sad, scared, when they deliberate over a decision, and wrestle with moral issues - to simply announce that gay people take action based on genetic configuration but alcoholics are fully neutral and are just making bad choices, is absolute conjecture.

The point is, whether a homosexual or a drunk or a gossip (not comparing good or normal with bad or abnormal - comparing owning a capacity to make real choices or being bound/compelled by genetic predisposition) whether a homosexual or a drunk or a gossip is genetically limited to be/do anything but a homosexual or a drunk or a gossip, doesn't at all mean that God is unjust to call them to repentance and faith . . . your whole argument here undermines the gospel message of Jesus, that all are separated from God and that all only and always do evil and require atonement.

They way you talk about this is as if God likes good people and doesn't like bad people and that all the good people get to go heaven but the bad people don't. It doesn't matter if our actions and choices, etc, are the necessary and unavoidable consequence of our natural birth, genetic makeup, just 'the way we were made', etc - God has every right and is a good and merciful God to condemn us for who and what we are and to call us to repentance and faith. It simply makes no difference if you (whoever) were born gay or chose to be gay - just because it's natural, desirable, irresistible for you to be attracted to men and be repulsed by women that doesn't mean that God is unjust to declare His eternal will that same sex sexual relationships are contrary to His will and to declare His own eternal plan and purpose for gender and marriage, etc.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ also . . .

"BTW. I knew you would wimp out of reading that book."

christopheranton, be honest, if I suggested a book for you to read titled 'Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Absolutely Does Condemn Homosexuality' from Orthodox Presbyterian Press, and suggested by me (or say, suggested by kentuckywriter267) would you read that hoping to improve your understanding and learn the truth? It's quite ludicrous to me that in one breath you can say "You appear to be terrified of learning new things." and in the next breath you can say ~

"What possible level of education can you possibly expect to get from reading books by the "Reformers and Puritans"?

These were brilliant, abundantly educated men, bold men who stood against the popular notions of their day at the risk of their lives . . . deep thinkers of profound ideas - have you ever read Owens, Newton, Calvin, Godet, Aquinas, Manton, etc? It is outlandishly foolish for Christians today to imagine they are reasonable to dismiss the work the Holy Spirit did in and through these men - God has given us the shoulders of giants to stand on, how boneheaded to fiddle around at the ankles of chuckleheads just as silly as we are.

But here's the clincher to all this ~

"If that is where you get your opinions, I'm surprised you are not advocating burning witches."

Who gets their opinions from some guy who wrote a book? Do you believe that the Bible affirms homosexual practices because you read some guy's book about it?! I read, from time to time, ancient church fathers, reformers, and puritans - but I don't come close to 'getting my opinions' from them . . . I learn, I gain different insights, I have my own understanding challenged, I have new views to consider, etc, and I grow and develop and mature - but I don't come close to 'getting my opinions' from a book some guy wrote.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

"It simply makes no difference if you (whoever) were born gay or chose to be gay - just because it's natural, desirable, irresistible for you to be attracted to men and be repulsed by women that doesn't mean that God is unjust to declare His eternal will that same sex sexual relationships are contrary to His will and to declare His own eternal plan and purpose for gender and marriage, etc."

I can only conclude, from the above quotation that you are trying to turn gay people against God.

I'm not afraid of reading the alternative viewpoint. I've just spent 3/4 of an hour reading the article that kentucky267 linked to, (an intellectually flawed heap of garbage btw). I read it right through mind you.

I'm not acquainted with the works of all those who you mention, but I do know a few things about them. I know that St Thomas Aquinas believed that the blessed in Heaven gained pleasure from watching the torments of the damned in Hell and that Calvin believed that some people were destined from birth to damnation. If those are not two examples of warped theology, I don't know what are. Some of your "church fathers" were writing in the times when civil authorities were burning gay people and they were advocating the practice. Almost all of them were in favour of burning "heretics". You really don't want to get your theology from such as these. It's no wonder your thinking is warped.


kentuckywriter267 profile image

kentuckywriter267 3 years ago from Hodgenville, KY

That IS the thing Christopheranton, it is not natural for a man to desire another man or a woman another woman. These are the things that have plagued this earth since the Fall of Man when the devil deceived Eve and Adam completed the sin and separation from God by unbelief and disobedience. (that is another subject altogether and I will be dealing with that soon so lets not get off the track of discussion,)

That is why God has revolved His Holy Word around the family. Think about this for a minute, God made Adam and Eve and said be fruitful and multiply. Were does this have anything to do with man laying with another man. the two cannot be fruitful nor are they able to multiply.

God also tells us that the Church is Jesus' Bride and we are all God's Children. There is still so much we don't know because God has not told us or we have not understood it yet, but we do know how crafty that the devil is, And we do know that the devil is here to Steal, Kill, & Destroy. The devil does not have any new tricks, he just wraps them up nice and neat in a new package and says here's something new, but, when you ask the Lord for understanding He helps you to see through the fog.

I know that, And have so much Faith in My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that everything that I have, will have, am, and going to say now and in the future will not be said in vain. God's word will never come back Void. So whether you believe Us now or after you are, God forbid, dead and buried, I know that there are some we are going to reach, Amen & Amen.

If for no other reason, but for yourself and your own knowledge and peace, Ask God to prove to you who He is and to show you the truth by surrounding you with a hedge that will keep all of your thoughts clear so that you can see the truth. You want the Truth and His Truth. And be patient. He (God) will show you and He will do it with such clarity and wow that you will know it is Him (God) telling you these things.

You do not have to take our words for it, God says to put him to the test. Ask God Himself, He will show you.

Well it's time for me to get ready for Church, May God Bless You This Day....


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I've been putting God to the test all my life and he has never let me down yet. Nor I'm afraid has he ever told me that I should be any different than what I know I am.

God bless you as well and may he open your eyes also.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

All you who sit and call me things that I am not will be judged just as harshly as you have judged me for you know NOT anything about me. Because I speak from the God WITHIN me I do get the same treatment as Jesus did for I also speak in his name too. Albeit it he has a different approach to you all with me it is still from the GOD WITHIN. Judge nowt lest ye be judged.

I am not gay but every single being here on this planet was put here for a reason and the only one who can do that is GOD, not anyone else. Satan cannot, he has been depicted as the evil one but you also know nothing about it beyond your present day, manipulated, mass controlling, erroneous Bible.

Are you ready to be judged in the same manner that you judge others on this hub? I think not, so go and meditate on what the real GOD intends for you to do. I can assure you that it is not puffing yourselves up and sitting yourselves on a pedestal to make yourself look better and holier than thou. THAT is EGO and that is NOT GOD.

The more that you call others names and try your best to degrade them the more your Satan loves you and the more your argument are full of EGO and not of GOD.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Way to go! Lady Guinevere.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ "I'm not afraid of reading the alternative viewpoint. I've just spent 3/4 of an hour reading the article that kentucky267 linked to, (an intellectually flawed heap of garbage btw)."

Well, you're a better man than I . . . I'm not afraid to read (or discuss, or consider, etc) alternative views - I'm just not, at this point in my life, willing to spent 3/4 of an hour reading an intellectually flawed heap of garbage. I understand that you don't know the caliber of the thinking or the honesty of the approach, etc, until you begin reading, but . . . well, I don't have to watch 3 episodes of 'The Waltons' to recognize it to be 'an intellectually flawed heap of garbage', and as time goes on, I don't even have to check-out 'The Little House On The Prairie' to reasonably determine it too will be 'an intellectually flawed heap of garbage'. I'm not afraid of 'The Little House On The Prairie', I simply don't want to give it some of my time when 'The Prisoner' or 'Strangers With Candy' is on.

"I'm not acquainted with the works of all those who you mention, but I do know a few things about them. I know that St Thomas Aquinas believed that the blessed in Heaven gained pleasure from watching the torments of the damned in Hell and that Calvin believed that some people were destined from birth to damnation. If those are not two examples of warped theology, I don't know what are. Some of your "church fathers" were writing in the times when civil authorities were burning gay people and they were advocating the practice. Almost all of them were in favour of burning "heretics". You really don't want to get your theology from such as these."

uh, those church fathers WERE the heretics being burnt, and Calvin did not believe that "some people were destined from birth to damnation" in the manner I'm thinking you are imagining he believed . . . he recognized that God knows all, the beginning from the end, and so in some manner we are all born (as God looks down from eternity, so-to-speak) destined for the lives God already sees (in eternity) is the lives we live, but Calvin did not believe that God PREdestines anyone for damnation.

But again, I am stunned when you say thing like "You really don't want to get your theology from such as these" - do you believe whatever you read, is your thinking the result of aligning yourself with some guy's book, are your viewpoints merely others' viewpoints that you've lifted from their book? In one breath you say you're not afraid to read "alternative viewpoints" but in the next breath you question reading something you assume you don't already agree with?!

I read all manner of guys, and I don't agree with great portions of their viewpoints or thinking - Aquinas was personally a brilliant man and advanced the understanding of spiritual truths in some regards, but he was a Dominican priest of the Roman Catholic Church during the Scholastic Age, so, he was ludicrously off and downright evil on some points.

christopheranton, you should read some of these old masters, your common and popular notion that they were killing everyone who disagreed with them and burning witches, etc, is simply an historically unsound apprehension of who these men were - puritans were not dour prudes who went about trying to ruin everyone's fun, they celebrated weddings with beer and live music until the wee hours, etc . . . modern elitists who need everything to be just their way or they cast you as morally inferior and self-righteously narrow-minded kind of need the historic church to be as you describe it, but the actual historic record evidences a very different account of things.

You should try some of the letters of John Newton . . . he's ok, right? I mean, he fought against the slave trade and Native American's traveled across the plains and sailed the ocean to seek his counsel and he wrote a pretty song, etc . . . his letters are very short, cover a broad scope of ideas, brilliant and intensely discerning of human nature, and arrestingly warn and spiritual - and there are cheap paperbacks of them. Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about when you pass-on some of the silly assumptions and slanderous assertions about these spirit-filled men of earlier generations.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

"Way to go! Lady Guinevere"

Really?! Just because the points she advances align with your own points, nothing else matters? I'm not sure I've read anything in these comments any more name-calling and degrading than "your Satan loves you" and she said it just after reprimanding others for name-calling and degrading others . . ?! How can anyone take a statement like this seriously ~

"The more that you call others names and try your best to degrade them the more your Satan loves you"

. . . it's like yelling at someone for eating sweets while you're gobbling-up an ice cream sunday, it's like accusing someone of being violent while you're punching them in the face, it's like telling someone they shouldn't call people names or degrade them while you assert they belong to Satan and that he loves them!? And you are willing to announce "Way to go!" . . . that's not intellectually honest - that's overlooking in one what you would fault others for just because you're on the same side.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

MickeySr

Aquinas on sexual ethics

"You can now see how Aquinas’s version of “natural law” theory is likely to have repercussions for sexual ethics. Many parts of our bodies have a purpose. These purposes are, according to Aquinas, God-given. It was God who gave us legs so that we can walk, a tongue so that we can taste and speak, and so on. But then someone who uses their body, or any part of it, contrary to the manner God intended, contravenes “natural law”. To thwart the natural functions that God has given things is act against God’s will. That makes it wrong.

The God-given role of semen

Aquinas notes that semen is plays a role in reproduction. That is its purpose, he supposes. But then any activity that involves thwarting the natural function of semen must be contrary to nature, and thus morally wrong. “It is evident,” says Aquinas,

that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Summa Theologica.

But then it follows that those sexual acts that result in the issue of semen where generation is not possible must be sinful. As homosexual acts between males involve thwarting the purpose God has assigned to semen, such acts are “contrary to nature”. If we act in this way, we frustrate the will of God. We sin.

Of course, if Aquinas is correct, it follows that masturbation and contraception are sinful too. This is, of course, the current position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex and contraception. All are sinful.

To date, the Catholic Church continues to oppose the use of condoms even in places like Africa, where they might save countless lives by reducing the spread of HIV and Aids (though there are signs, finally, that the Church may be about to shift its position on this). The roots of the Church’s justification for continuing to forbid the use of condoms lie at least partly in Aquinas’s medieval blending of Christian theology with Aristotle’s science. The use of condoms involves thwarting the natural reproductive function God has assigned to semen".

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/aquinas-o...

As you can see here, Aquinas opposes homosexual practices because they are, in the Aristotelian view against nature. His thinking on the subject is largely behing Catholic theology on the same. It is also the theology which forbids the use of all forms of artificial contraception, including condoms. Is this also your belief?

I suspect that you are selective in the practices you condemn, just as you are in the Leviticus prohibitions. Am I right.

Anyway, Aquinas's view on things is fatally flawed, because he believed that the correct use of our various parts was given to us at creation. We were not created however. We evolved. Even the Catholic Church accepts that fact. The various forms of sexual behaviour, including homosexuality, are to be found throughout nature. If you don't believe me, google "Bonoboes". So Aquinas is wrong. Our knowledge of the world and our place in it has moved on a bit since the middle ages. Perhaps you need to move on a bit in your thinking as well.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

MickySR, Where did I call anyone names? I was called Drama Queen and the like...because you don't like what I say and then that gives your the right to call others names???? I don't really care for that kind of BS. You also did not read the rest of my comment either. So sad that you can point fingers yet do it on your own piddly terms. There be BULLIES on Hubpages and many have come here and to Havanee's hub. K12 never answered my question either....WHy do you Choose to degrade me and call me names when I have never done that to you? What is the pay off for such behavior? Is it to get a rise out of someone elese so that you can in turn bash their heads in? Is that fun? Or is it just my alias that you have a problem with?


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

christopheranton ~ "I suspect that you are selective in the practices you condemn, just as you are in the Leviticus prohibitions. Am I right."

I suspect that you are selective in the ideas presented to you that you either condemn or cheer on, I mean, you respond to me with a specific point about a particular of Aquinas's views, as though you are suggesting to me that he may have been mistaken on some points, when my own remarks regarding Thomas Aquinas included . . .

"Aquinas was personally a brilliant man and advanced the understanding of spiritual truths in some regards, but he was a Dominican priest of the Roman Catholic Church during the Scholastic Age, so, he was ludicrously off and downright evil on some points."

I don't know from whose book you copy/pasted those observations about Aquinas from, but as far as I'm concerned they missed the bigger point; Aquinas, a medieval Roman Catholic, held the far more essential or primary to his thinking idea that material was itself evil (as opposed to the spiritual, which is holy) . . . his notion of the proper use or role of semen was just one conclusion he came to based on the core concept that the invisible spirit world is good and the visible material world is bad - another conclusion was that if we (like the monks) afflict, even torture the body (sleep on a flat, hard board or even whip ourselves, etc) we are assaulting evil and cultivating good. So, I'm not sure what your point is in telling someone who has acknowledged that Thomas Aquinas "was ludicrously off and downright evil on some points" that he was mistaken on a particular point.

As to being selective toward the "Leviticus prohibitions", I am not selective at all but happily recognize their authority and purpose, and so, I enjoy shrimp and bacon often, I trim my beard regularly, and I do not favor the death penalty for adulterers.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

Lady Guinevere ~ "because you don't like what I say and then that gives your the right to call others names?"

I don't recall even conversing with you, I certainly don't believe I've called you names . . . if I have said anything that's offended you I do apologize, it's not my intention here to trouble or distress anyone. Here's my confusion, and what I was commenting to christopheranton on; it has nothing to do with whether I agree with your view or not, I just don't get how when two people see things differently, and they both advance their own view as sound and the other's view as unsound, why does one get to assert that the other is being arrogant and degrading them, etc? When you say . . .

". . . sitting yourselves on a pedestal to make yourself look better and holier than thou. THAT is EGO and that is NOT GOD."

. . . you are asserting because another is advancing a view that counts your view to be wrong, that he is judging you and making himself holier than thou, etc - but when you say to someone 'you are sitting yourselves on a pedestal to make yourself look better and holier than thou' how is that not sitting yourself on a pedestal to make yourself look better and holier than thou? When you admonish someone for calling others names by saying "The more that you call others names and try your best to degrade them the more your Satan loves you and the more your argument are full of EGO and not of GOD." how is that not you calling them names and degrading them? I understand you're not saying 'you are a child of Satan' or you're not saying 'you are an egotist', etc, but, sort of, that's just what you're doing. If you mean "your Satan" not in any sense that this fellow serves Satan rather than God, but that 'Satan' is 'his' in the sense that you discount their is a Satan but recognize that this fellow asserts there is a Satan, so the 'Satan' you're talking about is no real Satan at all but is 'his (idea of) Satan', then I would have, personally, been more careful to make that clear.

"why do you Choose to degrade me and call me names when I have never done that to you?"

I don't think you have called me names or degraded me, and I don't think I've done either to you - I don't think we've had any exchanges here at all.

"Or is it just my alias that you have a problem with?"

Ok, now I'll call you a name - you're goofy. These discussion would be far more fruitful for all if we could all set our assumptions aside and take people as they present themselves - when you suggest that my views (not any name-calling or degrading, because I've not done that) are a response to some imagined offense you assume I likely have for your alias, because it suggests something to do with the nude female body (?) then you are not dealing with me but with some screwy biased assumption of who I am and what I'm like.

It's this simple with me Lady Guinevere; if two people disagree, I simply don't understand why one gets to assert the other is being bullheaded or degrading or argumentative or egotistical, etc, etc, when they both are disagreeing with the other - to me, it seems the act of asserting the other is degrading you and is egotistically judging, etc, is degrading and egotistical in itself . . ? Name-calling is one thing, and I'm confident I've not participated in any of that, and if I inadvertently did I do apologize, but simply seeing things differently doesn't have to require that anyone is judging the other or being egotistical, etc - people (grown-ups) can just see things differently.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I'm thinking of going straight, just to get myself a rest. All this constant badgering is becoming wearisome.

Hold to your opinions MickeySnr and I will hold to mine. I'm confident God will judge both of us fairly, when our respective times come.

I'm leaving you and Lady Guinevere to "slog it out" between yourselves. I've had it here for now.


Lady Guinevere profile image

Lady Guinevere 3 years ago from West Virginia

Oh no, I am leaving here too. Enough is enough. All this bullying has got to stop and the only way that I can see it stopping is leaving.


MickeySr profile image

MickeySr 3 years ago from Hershey, Pa.

I can appreciate that christopheranton, for me it's discussion, it's sharing ideas, it's trying to understand others better, etc (and there is a bit of just the enjoyment of vigorous thinking, the strategies and logic of presenting an argument, etc) - but I know for many people it just feels like fighting, like a battle, and if there's any ugliness (belligerence and name-calling, etc) then it gets wearisome quick . . . for me, I can go on (and I know, on and on and on) without hostility - for me it's all about the ideas and my own growing, it's never about 'winning' and certainly never about distressing others, and never ever intend to badger anyone. Thanks for the back-and-forth.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

ok. I am going to pretty much say the same thing I said to Havanee on his post with an identical title.

PLEASE READ IT AND IGNORE THE PARTS THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU. Its just a bit exhausting saying the same thing over and over again

You claim that soddom and Gomorah was not burnt down for homosexuality alone. Okay, good news to you. The whole world knew that. However homosexuality was part of their crimes. You try to disuade and make it seem like the actual crime was rape. No it wasnt. If they had taken lots daughters we would have known it was rape. Homosexuality itself was part of the crime. No one say they were all exclusively homosexual.

You contend that Genesis 19 should not be used to argue against homosexuality since Sodom was destroyed, not for homosexuality, but because of its inhospitality and pride (see Matthew 10:14-15; Ezekiel 16:48-49). The argument is that the men of the city did not necessarily have any sexual perversion in mind, but just wanted to “know” Lot’s guests in the sense of interrogating them in a disrespectful fashion.

While it is true to say that Sodom was not destroyed merely because some of its citizens practiced homosexuality, it is false to say that Sodom was destroyed merely because its inhabitants were inhospitable and proud. The city was destroyed because its citizens were exceedingly sinful (Genesis 13:13). Ezekiel 16, which does mention their pride, also says they “committed abomination before” the Lord. Their actions at Lot’s doorstep reflected that sinfulness (Genesis 19:4-11). When the men of Sodom said they wanted to “know” the messengers of God, they obviously had sexual intentions in mind. This is clear from Lot’s unfortunate offer of his two daughters. Jude 7 reinforces this view as well: “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

You speak about Leviticus in a cultural context yet in no part do you attain objectivity and relativity. When it comes to culture from decades ago all we really have is a "possible" explanation of the culture meaning there are so many other possibilities. You approach Samuel with a rather one sided and closed mind as with all things you speak so knowledgeable about like you could read directly into his mind. The fact is when it comes to historical research it only a possibility as you really dont know for certain and this is something you also do not point out to your readers. Also did it ever at some point occur to you that samuel might be killing two birds with one stone? When he asks them not to sleep (in your own words) with male prostitute (even though the bible does not record it as such) , did it ever cross your singular thinking mind and biased opinion that with that single statement he could be addressing two issues at the same time? Oh no, I guess this is too complicated for samuel. How many times in the bible did he do so?

Lets talk more about your so called pish finding in Leviticus

It is true that the Mosaic legal/holiness code was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). However, to trivialize the code by placing all items in it on the same level is dubious. The Levitical condemnation of homosexual behavior is treated differently than the legislations against mixing cloths and sowing mixed seed. The former was under penalty of death; the latter were not (Leviticus 19:19). A better, though more unpleasant, analogy to the Levitical view of homosexuality is seen in the prohibitions against incest and bestiality, which are mentioned in the same context (Leviticus 20:14-16)

The next is you claim David and Jonathan were in fact gay lovers. This is a joke. David and Jonathan were brothers in arms. You needs to meet and speak to actual soldiers that served together and see what kind of bond they have. Not every kind of love must be soiled with sexual intercourse.

It is stupid, singular minded , debased kind of thinking with a biased motivation that leads to such conclusions. You also as again is convenient with you forget to open the eyes of your readers to the alternative simply because it does not go with your biased book.

What about the obvious implications of what you are saying when you claim David and Jonathan are infact gay lovers. You then accuse Samuel of a major cover up as there is nothing directly stating that and anything in the bible is subject to interpretation. You claim that the writer of Leviticus who asks for in Leviticus 20:13 ( which enjoins the death penalty upon homosexuals) is covering this sin. Does he no longer fear God or does he fear David more. This obviously cant be true as he is the same man that condemned Saul. There is great error in your reasoning.

Let us talk about Jesus and his view on homosexuality. Jesus was in fact silent on homosexuality but was he not silent on other forms of sexual perversion (yes , I use it as a form of sexual perversion because it is not what the natural use of the body is for and I do have a right to say so as like I pointed several times homosexuality is done for pleasure reasons only and has no place in the laws of nature and procreation).

Jesus’ silence on the issue is also no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, Necrophilia or any number of other sexual perversions.

Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name?

Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do?

If this was infact the case that as long as there is love then people who abduct and commit all sort of terrible things in the name of love for the other should not be punished. Teachers who convince their 12 year old students to run away with them are fine. Afterall were they not both in love. TO PUT SIMPLY LOVE DOES NOT MEAN ONE HAS SEXUAL FREEDOM. Otherwise men and women are free to cheat on their partners as long as they love the other person.

What a soundly stupid logic you present. One that has no place except in your book and is conveniently not generalisable again.

Or is it?

Did Jesus support any kind of free love? Maybe you are thinking as well that the prostitute was infact not guilty of sin (maybe if the men she slept with loved her and she loved them back then prostitution is fine) because no one stonned her. Think again or why would he say go and sin no more?

To ask is to see the obvious answer.

In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say. Clearly, Jesus’ heterosexual view must be taken as normative


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Have you completely ignored ?

Romans 1:26-27:

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

You might say that paul was infact giving his own opinion. LMAO.

The fact is Paul meant exactly what Christians have long thought he meant—that homosexual behavior is symptomatic of sin in the world.

Or maybe you will try to discredit Paul also or even say he is homophobic? Another single minded view.

As you chose to ignore me time and time again and you chose to get violent with nonsense rambling of a child whose candy has been stolen instead of addressing a point.

Let me say this again

Every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is condemned. The Bible is not homophobic (i.e., obsessively hostile toward homosexuality), but it clearly treats heterosexuality as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al.). These unsuccessful attempts to reinterpret the Bible’s teaching on the subject raise an even more crucial question:

WHAT SCRIPTURE CAN BE PRESENTED THAT LEGITIMIZES HOMOSEXUALITY? (DO NOT IGNORE THE QUESTION AND DO NOT GO UNTO GAY BASHING RUBBISH, BIGGOT CALLING OR SOME DEFENSIVE BABLE)


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

You form conclusion without pointing your readers to alternatives or other possible explanations. This is not objective research. This is very biased talk. You speak with authourity like you were in the mind of Samuel. This is quite frankly stupid and a childish error. Historical research is largely opinion based and can never be factual. This is simply the truth. There is no form of reliability or validity present as in the strictest scientific meaning of the terms. It form “possible” conclusion and must never be presented as fact. Or have you ever heard of a historical theory before? Maybe you think your research (if it can even be called that) is the exemption to the rule.

I asked for your variable consider and you gave me another gay bashing speech. What were the circumstance you took into consideration? After all you clearly did when speaking about Molech and Leviticus so what was the other possible explanation of the words of Samuel? I gave you a chance to redeem yourself and not show yourself to be the “real fraud”.

You accuse me of fraud. What a childish conclusion. Do I need to name drop for my words to have credibility? Do I need to send copies of my three degrees with are to be fair more than you have or understand?

You claim you taught lots of people. I have lots of professors who teach what “they” know but as you might or might not know, in the academic community you are not a God because you teach. You are just someone with an opinion or possible expertise on a subject. This does not make you beyond criticism. This is something your ego has not yet let you understand as it appears in your rant as if that is a claim to fame. I have taught in several places and even addressed world leaders yet this is the first I have made mention of it as it does not add or take away from my credibility or ability to show you as a fraud. It is a side thing with no direct need to be stated.

You try to always attack me personally without ever address the educative. This is like a magician blowing smoke into a room so people don’t notice his disappearing act. You first of started by saying I don’t speak good English so I must not have university degrees. Another small minded statement as you never took into consideration that English might not be my first language. This another example of your single minded approach to all subject. Then we moved into gay bashing until I explained or brought my personal life on how my brother is gay and was my best man at my wedding and all of that…

This again is another single minded approach. This is a thing I want all your followers to see and know.

I repeat

You personally seem to not be able to accept criticism. You applaud your book as almost equal to the bible if not even greater as like you say "a lot of research " has been put into it. Yet from your opening statement of how only two people will read this. You the author already shows your biase. There is no way that book is free of it as you spend a lot of time insulting your readers and if you feel only 2 types will read it does it make sense to insult potentially half your readers and demean them as been people "brainwashed "?

Your thinking appears comical. Your ideologies lost and writing a desperate search for recognition. You want people to believe you yet the thinking behind the book (not you in person as I don't know you) lacks reasoning and academic rigour expected in empirical research. You make lots of closed ended statements based only on your own understanding and belittle anyone (rather childishly) that goes against it.

The truth is your book is concluded on nothing more than speculation and possibility and it would be okay if you had a title or stance that was more of a question like "does the bible really condemn homosexuality?

Also no research is without its own criticisms brought by the researcher. What is yours?

My other question also remains, what different variables are in the context?

You formed a conclusion but your method to it is so open that it in no way gives credit to your conclusion.

How are you still missing this glaring fact?

I ALSO MENTIONED

Even strict, 'true experimental,' designs have to make compromises, and the researcher must be thorough in pointing these out, justifying the methodology and reasoning.

have said so much and yet you make conclusions (As is normal with you) that are in no where indicative of what was said.

Another use of scientific fallacy called "Bait and Switch" or Fallacy of Equivocation.

An example is . It is well known that the average family has 2.5 children (premise #1). Well, Jane's family is very average (premise #2), so they must have 2.5 children (conclusion).

OR another example is

Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings. Example borrowed from Copi.)

This is what you did.

NOW are you going to continue to ignore the elephant in the room and go on about gay bashing. It is so much easier to turn to that than to accept your failures and short comings (oh wait your research is yet to accept it has any short comings. I guess it must be the only research on the world without one.By the way even laws such as Ohms law , gravitation law and the likes have conditions attached or variables).

Please read about the Fallacy of Equivocation and see how silly your book is.

I know it is easy to claim everyone that doesnt support you is a gay basher but that is based on you assuming your book is infallible.

This is another example of using Fallacy of Equivocation. "If only you can prove to others I am a gay basher then I must also not be held to have credibility".

I have raised at least 20 questions directly at you, your logic, your book and your lack of use of any creditable research method in truthfulness and its entirety. What is your response?


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Finally with regards to the issue of David and Jonathan please research before you make some ridiculous statement.

This should help correct your thinking as clearly you have never seen love that brother in arms share for each other. Jonathan saved Davids life. It was love with no sexual desire. The bible does not condemn love between men or same sex. It condemns sexual acts between men and same sex.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/were-david-and-jo...


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Sorry about the extra stuff in the posts.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Cheers MickeySnr. It was interesting debating this issue with you and no doubt we can return to it at another time, (maybe even in another realm).


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

By the way did I forget to mention that David had 8 wives and 10 concubines (all female).

I guess maybe his homosexuality just up and left him dint it?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks for all your comments Daniel. Since most of them are not addressed to me, I am at a loss as to how I can answer them.

The one point I will address is the attitude of Jesus to same sex love. He did not refer to it directly very much, but if you look at how he held up the Roman centurion, (who was gay) as an example to be emulated, you should have a clue. Jesus even cured the guys lover and there was no talk there of "go an sin no more". Could this be because Jesus didn't see any sin?


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Who is this gay roman centurion and how did you come to that conclusion.

Also I addressed the issue with Leviticus. Also with David and Jonathan being perceived as gay..


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

As regards David and his wives and concubines. Maybe he was bisexual.

Perhaps he had all those women as a cover to hide his real sexuality. After all, he loved Jonathon more than any woman.

Also, how is it moral for him to have all those wives and concubines anyway? Shouldn't he be condemned for that? It's certainly not the behaviour that would be acceptable in a modern Christian household. Do I detect double standards here? It seems to be alright for him to have multiple female partners, but to suggest that he might have just one male one is not to be tolerated.

The attitude here, once again, is of anti homosexual prejudice. Otherwise why tolerate polygamy and damm same sex relationships?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I can answer your question about the gay centurion best by pasting from an article I wrote previously on that subject.

"There is also the curious story of the roman centurion and his sick servant.

In the roman army it was the rule that serving soldiers were not allowed to marry. This ban was in force until it was abolished by the Emperor Septimus Severus in 197 AD. It was not unusual for soldiers to have relationships with people they were not allowed to marry. This sometimes included same sex relationships.

In the accounts in the Gospels the word used to describe the beloved servant of the roman centurion in Matthew and Luke was the Greek "pais". When they referred to other servants they used the word "doulus". There is no other instance in the entire New Testament where servants are regarded as any other than "doulus",( which means simply servant or slave). The word "pais" however in ancient Greek is always used to refer to same sex lovers.

The following three examples will illustrate the point.

Thucydides writes of Agathon, 445-400 BC, the pais, same gender lover of Pausanias, King of Sparta, in History of the Peloponnesian War. Their relationship began when Agathon was 18 and continued for twenty years.

Eupolis, a playwright, 446-411 BC, references Agathon, an exceptionally good-looking man who, in his late teens, was the paidika or pais of Pausanias. Their same sex relationship continued to flourish when Agathon was in his thirties.

Aeschines, 390-314 BC, Athenian poet, in Against Timarchos, charged rival politician Timarchos with having lived off his relationships with older men. In such relationships, the older man was called the erastes or the lover, and the younger man was called the eromenos or paidika or pais, the boyfriend. Paidika is derived from pais.

There are others that I could show as well, but I think these three should be sufficient for now.

Nowhere in the story of the centurion does Jesus say "You are an abomination. Take your servant and wait at the gates of Hell" instead he says "I have found no greater faith than this in all Israel". The servant/same sex lover gets cured."

I'm surprised you didn't know about that one. Well you do now.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Daniel Prideland is obviously ignorant of the fact that, in ancient times, men routinely had other men as lovers, and women as wives to raise heirs and keep the home. Men of those days considered women less than cattle, and they wrote in their literature that only the love of men was worthy of being written about. Here are some examples:

Warrior Models of Homosexual Virtue

Of the many stories told from ancient times, there is one that would exemplify the model that contributed greatly to some of the virtues held as homosexual ideals. It refers to the famous group of all-homosexual soldiers known as the Sacred Band. Plutarch references them in his Life of Pelopidas, and states that the inspiration for the formation of the Sacred Band came from Plato’s “Symposium,” in which the character Phaedrus says that an army formed of male lovers would fight more fiercely and cohesively than strangers who had no ardent bonds.

The Sacred Band was formed of homosexual lovers, couples who were loyal to each other, all of them from the ranks of the army of Thebes. These pairs were made up of charioteers, “heniochoi,” and their lovers, “parabatai.” Whenever they were in battle, their commander, Gorgidas, made certain to disperse them throughout the front ranks of the Theban army, thus boosting the morale of the rest of the army.

In 379 B.C., Pelopidas recaptured the acropolis of Thebes and was placed in charge of the Sacred Band. Pelopidas united with his friend, Epaminondas, and together, they led the Sacred Band as a unit that was from thenceforth never separated or scattered, but used as a single unit, and this Sacred Band was never defeated in battle for forty years (378-338). When they were finally defeated, sadly, they were not only defeated, but they were utterly destroyed by Philip II of Macedon with his son, Alexander the Great, at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 B.C. The Theban army was outmatched by the Macedonians, and they fled leaving the Sacred Band completely surrounded by Philip II and his army. The Sacred Band refused to surrender, and all 300 were massacred that day along with their commander, Theagenes. According to Plutarch, when Philip II viewed their corpses piled one on top of the other, fully recognizing their great character, he decreed: “Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful.” In 300 B.C., Thebes (some say Philip II, himself, ordered this built) memorialized the Sacred Band with a stone monument in the form of a giant stone lion on a pedestal at the site of their burial, and this monument still stands today. This burial site was excavated in 1890, and 254 skeletons arranged in seven rows were uncovered.

The son of Philip II, Alexander the Great, famous for his military conquests, was equally legendary for his eternal love of Hephaistion. Aristotle, who tutored both of them, described these two as “one soul in two bodies.” According to Arrian, when Hephaistian died suddenly at Ecbatana in 324 B.C., Alexander “. . . flung himself on the body of his friend and lay there nearly all day long in tears, and refused to be parted from him until he was dragged away by force by his Companions.” Alexander the Great was so overwhelmed with grief that he petitioned the oracle of Siwa to ask Amon to grant Hephaistion the status of a god. Alexander spent the modern equivalent of nearly 200 million dollars on the funeral for Hephaistion. Eight months later, Alexander died while still planning monuments to show his love for him.

Brian

A Child of God


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

II Samuel 1:26:

“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.”

The relationship between Jonathan and David was very much like the male-to-male relationships that were common in the Roman and Greek society in the days of Jesus. Men had male lovers for great conversation and sex, and they had women as wives in order to raise male heirs and maintain the household. Some like to say that this would best be described as bisexuality. I would disagree only in that men were much more fluid in their sexuality than to be limited to any labels. There were various degrees of sexual attraction, and I go into that more in the section of this book dealing with the New Testament, but suffice it say here that Jonathan and David undoubtedly enjoyed each other in all aspects, sexually being one of them. And such relationships did not mean that they did not have wives or children. That was expected. Jonathan produced children, one of whom survived, Mephibosheth, and David produced many children, as well. But, the idea of the household was property, not love. And everyone belonged in that household as property—except for the father. He owned the household. Thus, men could have male-to-male relations that went to any level, and that relationship did not diminish on any account of the household.

This is necessary to understand for several reasons, the most primary being that some will point to Jonathan’s having children, and David’s having children, as proof that they did not have a homosexual relationship, and this is extremely naive and unscholarly. The second is to note the full meaning, therefore, of this passage from I Samuel 20:14-17:

“And thou shalt not only while I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:

But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.

So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David’s enemies.

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”

Prior to the discussion in this passage, David had asked Jonathan to find out why his father was angry with him, and he then asked, as well, that if his father intended to kill him, to please not send him back to Saul, but to let him die at the hands of Jonathan, instead. Jonathan reassured him that under no circumstances would he allow Saul, nor anyone else for that matter, to kill David. He told David to hide in his usual hideaway, and that he would find out what Saul’s plans were. If they were indeed to have David killed, then Jonathan would come and tell David and then make arrangements for David to flee safely into exile. It is after this discussion that the passage in verse 14-17 takes place. In this we see that Jonathan exacts a pledge for a lifetime, and beyond, that being that the household of Jonathan will always be shown the “kindness of the LORD” by the household of David. And Jonathan did not ask David to swear by this “marriage” (covenant) once, but twice (“And Jonathan caused David to swear again . . .”) because “. . . he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.” What began when Jonathan fell in love with David at that first sighting, this was what Jonathan wanted to make a monument to, to proclaim their love for each other forever, that even in death, Jonathan would be remembered by David. And it was so.

Brian

A Child of God


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

. Jonathan and David arranged to meet alone one last time in a field outside of the city. This meeting is described in I Samuel 20:41-42:

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.”

“Until David exceeded,” these words cause a lot of supposed scholars a certain amount of unrest, because the literal meaning of this part of the sentence is that David got an erection. Whether or not he ejaculated is uncertain, because we are missing words here that would have completed the sentence and given us the complete picture. Apparently the scribe who transcribed the manuscript that survived felt it necessary to leave out those words, or he accidentally left them out and never caught his error, but many experts feel that certain words were, indeed, omitted that would have completed the thought. However it happened, we may never know. But, we do have the words “ad David higdil,” which translates “until David enlarged.” David and Jonathan knew that this was probably going to be the last time they would ever see each other, and while David, ever the politically correct man, bowed three times to show his respect for the high royal status of Jonathan, it was only moments before they were in each other’s arms. I most definitely don’t think that they kissed without embracing. David said that Jonathan’s love surpassed that of women. Therefore, it is impossible for me to see these two not being in each other’s arms as they enjoyed what they both felt would be the last time together. And, when people are in love, and they know they only get one more time together, given the opportunity, they go for it. They kissed, and they wept, and they enjoyed each other for an undetermined length of time, but, in the end of it, David “exceeded.” The key word here is actually “ad,” “until.” For those who like to translate that this phrase to mean that David wept longer than Jonathan, such an attempt is just pure nonsense. David was the alpha male in this relationship, and Jonathan was more the emotional, heartfelt pursuer in his role. If this was a matter of who wept the longest, then the vote would have gone to Jonathan. But the word “until” tells us that the kissing, and embracing, and weeping, and being close to each other one last time, all of this emotion and mutual enjoyment of the moment went on “until” something happened, that something being the climax of it all, and that was that David “got an erection and ejaculated.” The only word there is the word in Hebrew meaning “to make large,” or “to grow large.” I think that David enjoyed Jonathan “until” he was fulfilled sexually. Higdil is the Hiphil Causative of גדל gadal,” meaning “he caused to become large.” The best parallel for the correct translation of gadal here is to look at Ezekiel 16:26:

“Thou hast committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbors, great of flesh (gidley basar) . . .”גִּדְלֵי בָשָׂר

The English words “great of flesh” actually are the translators’ attempt to use a euphemism rather than say what it literally does in the Hebrew, and that is, “well hung.” “Gidley basar” is literally “enlarged penis,” or, “big of penis.” “Gidley” is a form of “gadal.” I have to chuckle when I read the sanitized version that is found in some Bibles, “. . . with your neighbors, the lustful Egyptians . . .” The NJB translation gets it right with the words “. . . your big-membered neighbors . . .”

Brian

A Child of God


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Now some people think that the writers of the Old Testament had the same prudishness about matters of a sexual nature as we do today, and that would be incorrect. True, there were words that bothered them, just as there are words that bother some people of religious backgrounds today, but the words that bothered them are not the words that bother us. For example, Staying with Ezekiel, let’s look at Ezekiel 23:20:

“For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and who issue is like the issue of horses.”

The words “flesh of asses” is literally the “penis (basar) of donkeys,” and the “issue of horses” is literally the “semen of the ejaculation of horses.” Ezekiel says that Israel lusted after Egyptians whose male sex organs were like those of donkeys and whose ejaculations were like those of stallions. (Note once again, we see the double insult, calling Israel not only a woman, but a whore as well. No man in Israel thought of his nation as anything but masculine, all male.) So, if Ezekiel had no problem with these seemingly lewd words, it is apparent that they weren’t among the words that had to be modified in his day, words like “temple prostitutes.” Still, why we only have the unfinished phrase, “until David enlarged,” is a problem argued even today by theologians on both sides of the fence.

Nonetheless, “higdil” means that the passage is speaking of David’s penis and the fact that he got an erection from the excitement of their embracing. Men loving men was not considered abnormal in this time and place. Only Jonathan’s seeming passivity, in the eyes of Saul, was cause for concern, and that only for the obvious reasons we mentioned. Jonathan began this relationship with David in full view of Saul and with Saul’s blessing, so this male-to-male relationship was not out of the ordinary, thereby showing that homosexuality was part of the accepted and very fluid sexuality of the time.

Brian

A Child of God


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Thanks for all that additional information Brian. Here's hoping it opens a few eyes and minds. I wouldn't "hold your breath" waiting though.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Havanee says: Daniel Prideland is obviously ignorant of the fact that, in ancient times, men routinely had other men as lovers, and women as wives to raise heirs and keep the home. Men of those days considered women less than cattle, and they wrote in their literature that only the love of men was worthy of being written about.

Another stupid ridiculous conclusion. ALl men were gay those days? What rubbish. I guess we must simply ignore Davids 8 wives and 10 concubines?

The madness in your statements and generalisations is laughable.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Don't say you weren't told Brian. Debating issues with these people is like banging you head off a brick wall.

Take comfort from knowing that you may be giving comfort to young gay Christians, who realise now for the first time that they are not sinful freaks.

Keep up the good work.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

So do not provide comfort when its foundation is a lie.

Havanee provides a statement again that there were gay men of war and as such "The bible" (which is an entirely different thing and God most holy) accepts and even affirms this. That is the most outrageous use of the fallacy of equivocation.

They are worlds apart.

The entire book of songs is written on heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the norm according to the bible and you even go as far as to say it affirms it.

I am sorry unless the meaning of that word has changed I took affirm to mean (State as a fact; assert strongly and publicly).

What scripture do you have that actually asserts strongly and publicly homosexuality? There are dozens for heterosexuality. So we know the bible actually affirms that.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Why do you ask questions, that have already been answered Daniel? Read the account about Jesus and the gay centurion. There are two versions in the New Testament, one in Matthew and the other in Luke. It might aid you to read the account of Philip and the eunuch in the Acts of the apostles as well.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Oh my goodness. May God forgive you all. The centurion was gay? and the Eunuch too? WHat debased minds you have

You claim that the same Samuel who asked for the death penalty on homosexuality also spoke about David and Jonathan without thinking the same thing. See the madness in your talk

This is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read by Havanee

" Jonathan and David arranged to meet alone one last time in a field outside of the city. This meeting is described in I Samuel 20:41-42:

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.”

“Until David exceeded,” these words cause a lot of supposed scholars a certain amount of unrest, because the literal meaning of this part of the sentence is that David got an erection. Whether or not he ejaculated is uncertain, because we are missing words here that would have completed the sentence and given us the complete picture. Apparently the scribe who transcribed the manuscript that survived felt it necessary to leave out those words, or he accidentally left them out and never caught his error, but many experts feel that certain words were, indeed, omitted that would have completed the thought. "

May God have mercy on your souls. I have moved from a point of pity to a point of deep sadness for you both.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Is it possible that David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17

So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26

“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of LOVE in these passages. The first is ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is ‘ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times that these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

Genesis 27:8-9

Now therefore, my son, listen to me as I command you. Go now to the flock and bring me two choice kids from there, that I may prepare them as a savory dish for your father, such as he loves.

Genesis 37:3

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic.

Deuteronomy 11:1

You shall therefore love the LORD your God, and always keep His charge, His statutes, His ordinances, and His commandments.

1 Samuel 18:16

But all Israel and Judah loved David, and he went out and came in before them.

1 Kings 10:9

Blessed be the LORD your God who delighted in you to set you on the throne of Israel; because the LORD loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness.”

Jeremiah 31:3

The LORD appeared to him from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”

Micah 6:8

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is NOT meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan that there is NO Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue that the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here. Part of the problem is that in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is ALWAYS in a negative sense (as something we SHOULDN’T do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well that such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture? So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers, in fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know that the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?

So Why Did They Kiss?

Now there is more for us to consider. Some have pointed to the kiss between David and Jonathan to argue that they were homosexual lovers:

1 Samuel 20:41

When the lad was gone, David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but David more.

In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows that his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows that he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak’) and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament and in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

Genesis 29:13

So it came about, when Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister’s son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house.

Genesis 33:4

Then Esau ran to meet him (Jacob) and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept.

1 Samuel 10:1

Then Samuel took the flask of oil, poured it on his (Saul’s) head, kissed him and said, “Has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?

2 Samuel 19:38-39

All the people crossed over the Jordan and the king crossed too. The king then kissed Barzillai and blessed him, and he returned to his place.

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion that they were homosexuals. Even today, we see that men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?

Another claim on the part of revisionists is that Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

1 Samuel 18:2-5

Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered; and Saul set him over the men of war. And it was pleasing in the sight of all the people and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.

Sometimes we are careful to note what is SAID in a passage without thinking much about what is NOT SAID. You’ll notice here that the passage does NOT say that Jonathan stripped completely in front of David. In addition, the passage says NOTHING about any sexual activity or even a kiss or an embrace or ANYTHING that would lead us to believe that there is a sexual component in the passage! Now many homosexuals would like us to believe that when Jonathan gave his weaponry to David, he was actually surrendering the symbols of his manhood, but let’s be honest with the passage. Here is how historical and tradition commentators have discussed the passage:

Adam Clarke’s Commentary

Presents of clothes or rich robes, in token of respect and friendship, are frequent in the East. And how frequently arms and clothing were presented by warriors to each other in token of friendship, may be seen in Homer and other ancient writers.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary

To receive any part of the dress which had been worn by a sovereign, or Iris oldest son and heir, is deemed in the East the highest honour which can be conferred on a subject. The girdle, being connected with the sword and the bow, may be considered as being part of the military dress, and great value is attached to it in the East.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

As a sign and pledge of his friendship, Jonathan gave David his clothes and his armour. Meil, the upper coat or cloak. Maddim is probably the armour coat.. This is implied in the word wª`ad (OT:5704), which is repeated three times, and by which the different arms were attached more closely to madaayw (OT:4055). For the act itself, compare the exchange of armour made by Glaucus and Diomedes (Hom. Il. vi. 230). This seems to have been a common custom in very ancient times, as we meet with it also among the early Celts (see Macpherson’s Ossian).

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves that the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?

Those who would interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case that Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David:

1 Samuel 20:30-31

Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of “nakedness” in this verse and claim that it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim that Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But let’s be honest about the passage. Who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage that describes a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about ANY type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul! Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply MAD that Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?

But there is another passage of Scripture that is sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage that seems to indicate that David had TWO opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21

Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”… And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain that Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They would argue that David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But let’s take a deeper look at the situation. Before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress! That’s right, you could commit adultery even BEFORE you were officially married! If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married! In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20

Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about DIVORCING Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab! This occurred the moment he defeated Goliath. Read it in the scripture:

1 Samuel 17:22-25

Then David left his baggage in the care of the baggage keeper, and ran to the battle line and entered in order to greet his brothers. As he was talking with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine from Gath named Goliath, was coming up from the army of the Philistines, and he spoke these same words; and David heard them. When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid. And the men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who is coming up? Surely he is coming up to defy Israel. And it will be that the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel.”

Since David was the man who killed Goliath, he is the man to whom Merab was pledged. At this moment, David became Saul’s son-in-law; at the very moment that David defeated Goliath. This is the FIRST time that David became Saul’s son-in-law. So why does Saul say that marrying Merab will then be David’s second opportunity to be Saul’s son-in-law in 1 Samuel 18:21? TO understand this, we are now going to need to read the entire passage from Samuel:

1 Samuel 18:17-21

Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite! Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary

Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife –Though bound to this already [1 Samuel 17:25], he had found it convenient to forget his former promise. He now holds it out as a new offer, which would tempt David to give additional proofs of his valor. But the fickle and perfidious monarch broke his pledge at the time when the marriage was on the eve of being celebrated, and bestowed Merab on another man; an indignity as well as a wrong, which was calculated deeply to wound the feelings and provoke the resentment of David. Perhaps it was intended to do so, that advantage might be taken of his indiscretion. But David was preserved from this snare.

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David TWICE! Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?

In order to believe that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe that Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 3 years ago from Pennsylvania

Daniel Prideland keeps throwing around that phrase "fallacy of equivocation" as if he is some degreed professor who knows what he is talking about. The fact that such a phrase is irrelevant to the discussion does not matter to him, because he thinks this is a "big word," something that makes him sound authoritative. Dear Professor Pridefull, please enlighten us as to how the fact that history records thousands of years of male homosexual liaisons, unions, even marriages, literature filled with love stories of men to men, and how this is the "fallacy of equivocation." Please enlighten us. I can't wait.

Brian

A Child of God


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

If some people occupied half the time they spend, trying to prove homosexual sex was wrong, looking after the poor and needy, they would be much better Christians.

That's never going to happen though.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

Pot calling the kettle black. Let me reverse that. If some people spend half their time trying to prove homosexuality was right (example havanee spending what he claims to be 40 years), looking after the poor and needy, they would be much better Christians.

Hypocrisy at its loudest.

with regards to fallacy of equivocation. I have already explained this. Do not be too lazy to read what was written several times.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

You ignored and deleted my last comment.

Pot calling the kettle black

Lets turn that around. If you stopped trying to prove homosexuality to be right and you were looking after the poor and needy the world would be a better place.

Every month I give away 10% of everything that comes my way to charity. I volunteer time and I have started a charity. What have you done to help the world except twist the word of God?

ALso with regards to fallacy of equivocation. You show your gross ignorance on research,

Let me explain it to you

Your position is that the bible does not directly condemn homosexuality (lets put aside the perverted assumptions that David and jonathan were gay and Samuel covered it up yet condemn homosexuality in leviticus). Your only possible conclusion should be that the Bible has not been interpreted correctly.

Yet you take this to mean that according to you because the bible does not condemn it (still only according to you) then it affirms (State as a fact; assert strongly and publicly) it.

You simply take the assumption that the absence of one must mean the presence of the other. You do not take a second to understand that they are independent of each other.

A few examples is this

1) Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings. Example borrowed from Copi.)

2)The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

3)All child-murderers are inhuman, thus, no child-murderer is human.

The same goes for leviticus. You claim that it is interpreted in cultural context to be that Samuel was actually addressing idol worshipping to Molech and thats why he said for a man to lie with a man is an abomination.

While it is "possible" that this is infact true. It is a historical conclusion and as such must be treated as such. It is relative to your understand and restricted by present knowledge so it can never be a FACT. There is no such thing as a historical fact when it comes to language interpretations. It will always be a matter of opinion. You have again based a conclusion on a personal opinion. You present a lot of opinions as if they are FACT.

More importantly it still does not seem to occur to anyone here that even using your "possible" explanation it is in fact possible Samuel is killing two birds with one stone. Or are you so small and simple minded that he needs to say the same thing twice?

You take another word that means something and attribute it to something else and then look for "possible" culture to form a conclusion.

Where is the the scriptural proof that "affirms " (State as a fact; assert strongly and publicly) such belief?


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

I guess you will delete my comment again.


Daniel Prideland profile image

Daniel Prideland 3 years ago

You ignored and deleted my last comment.

Pot calling the kettle black

Lets turn that around. If you stopped trying to prove homosexuality to be right and you were looking after the poor and needy the world would be a better place.

Every month I give away 10% of everything that comes my way to charity. I volunteer time and I have started a charity. What have you done to help the world except twist the word of God?

ALso with regards to fallacy of equivocation. You show your gross ignorance on research,

Let me explain it to you

Your position is that the bible does not directly condemn homosexuality (lets put aside the perverted assumptions that David and jonathan were gay and Samuel covered it up yet condemn homosexuality in leviticus). Your only possible conclusion should be that the Bible has not been interpreted correctly.

Yet you take this to mean that according to you because the bible does not condemn it (still only according to you) then it affirms (State as a fact; assert strongly and publicly) it.

You simply take the assumption that the absence of one must mean the presence of the other. You do not take a second to understand that they are independent of each other.

A few examples is this

1) Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings. Example borrowed from Copi.)

2)The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

3)All child-murderers are inhuman, thus, no child-murderer is human.

The same goes for leviticus. You claim that it is interpreted in cultural context to be that Samuel was actually addressing idol worshipping to Molech and thats why he said for a man to lie with a man is an abomination.

While it is "possible" that this is infact true. It is a historical conclusion and as such must be treated as such. It is relative to your understand and restricted by present knowledge so it can never be a FACT. There is no such thing as a historical fact when it comes to language interpretations. It will always be a matter of opinion. You have again based a conclusion on a personal opinion. You present a lot of opinions as if they are FACT.

More importantly it still does not seem to occur to anyone here that even using your "possible" explanation it is in fact possible Samuel is killing two birds with one stone. Or are you so small and simple minded that he needs to say the same thing twice?

You take another word that means something and attribute it to something else and then look for "possible" culture to form a conclusion.

Where is the the scriptural proof that "affirms " (State as a fact; assert strongly and publicly) such belief?

By the way Havanee, I am significantly more educated that you are. I mean by a long mile so dont bring up degrees again.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Daniel.

I didn't ignore or delete any of your comments. Since I live in the UK, your comments were posted when I was asleep. I don't sit for twenty four hours infront of the computer, watching to see if someone posts on HubPages. I do have other things to do. I'm attending to them now.

Ok. That's them dealt with, (at least so far as they merit).

Bye.


Mikey27 3 years ago

I am only going to say this because I felt it was my duty to do so. I refuse to argue and throw bible verses back and forth like a game of ping pong. I refuse to use the bible as a weapon or a shield. It's my guiding light and Jesus is my shepherd and my hero and I love him dearly. My parents and family are extremely right wing conservative Christians, and they have me their republican open minded Christian son who happens to be gay. We are all in my family extremely religious and have un moveable faith. We also all believe that I as a gay man was born the way I was born and that We all know I've been this way since earliest childhood memories (I am 27). Christ never mentions homosexuality but makes it very clear that if another man judges another that our Father will judge ye greater. Whether a fellow Christian feels my family or myself am wrong for supporting my homosexual lifestyle, you have no authority to judge me. Only God is the one and true King/JUDGE. If u think my family and I are incorrect , kewl. No sweat off my back. Our lord created me the way he wanted me. If you think otherwise that's fine. I don't need your support or re assurance. Ive got my lords my own and my beautiful family. I suggest to other gays or open minded people on this forum, don't waste time on those judging you and throwing bible phrases at u. Let them judge and be judged. Take no part in it and love yourself.


Mikey27 3 years ago

And I know this might be slightly disrespectful (although so have others been on here) but if someone who has no authority to judge me judges me (Lord our God is the only authoritive Judge) I just suggest you turn you hand up to their face and say as Youtubes famous Chris Crocker says "B@tch, Please"!!!! :0)


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Very well said Mikey. Thank you and God bless you in all your endeavours.


Pixelsweet 3 years ago

There is a lot of confusion and errors in this hub. And the correction is out of love, for those God loves he corrects. So, all that's been written here is out of a man misinterpreting of the scriptures for we are to pray without ceasing and ask for God's help and guide on understanding of the word. God put pairs one female and male in the garden to bear fruit create human life and one pair male and female of the animals in the ark and God does bless marriages where it's male with female. God intended to be this way in Genesis there is no debates on this in the beginning it was male and female women made out of the rib of the man. I pray before I read the bible and the rainbow is the symbol of God promise that he won't destroy the world threw water the flood. And we all have learned this in church as a child. If ordination is a sin and adultery is a sin then having sex with the same sex is a sin. This world is saying evil is good and good is evil mentality. It's an spirit of the flesh the world but Christians are not part of the world. well I didn't enjoy your disintegration of scriptures. It reads error something isn't right here. So in Provers it reads "It's better to open rebuke... than a hidden love." And also As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. So there is no judgment here just God's correction. Water reflects a face, so man's heart reflects the man.

There is a lot of confusion and errors in this hub. And the correction is out of love, for those God loves he corrects. So, all that's been written here is out of a man misinterpreting of the scriptures for we are to pray without ceasing and ask for God's help and guide on understanding of the word. God put pairs one female and male in the garden to bear fruit create human life and one pair male and female of the animals in the ark and God does bless marriages where it's male with female. God intended to be this way in Genesis there is no debates on this in the beginning it was male and female women made out of the rib of the man. I pray before I read the bible and the rainbow is the symbol of God promise that he won't destroy the world threw water the flood. And we all have learned this in church as a child. If ordination is a sin and adultery is a sin then having sex with the same sex is a sin. This world is saying evil is good and good is evil mentality. It's an spirit of the flesh the world but Christians are not part of the world. well I didn't enjoy your disintegration of scriptures. It reads error something isn't right here. So in Provers it reads "It's better to open rebuke... than a hidden love." And also As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. So there is no judgment here just God's correction. Water reflects a face, so man's heart reflects the man.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Pixelsweet.

I hate to be the one to tell you but there was no garden and God put neither man nor woman in one. Genesis is an allegory. We evolved, we were not created.


Sarena 3 years ago

You quoted on one of your replies "To read, and understand, an ancient book you need to know a little bit about the context in which it was written; and also have some idea of the original meaning of the actual words." And I must say I'm very glad you said that...BUT I know you will deny what I have to say Next! If you have a response to me I welcome your response here as well as in email!

It is too funny how people will use David & Jonathan as a biblical example for homosexuality when there is nothing SEXUAL about their friendship! But carnal minds see that any type of love between the same sexes is automatically considered as homosexuality....what carnal minds LACK understanding of is that the words we see written in the KJV even though spelled the same can have different meanings...!

"Jesus most certainly speaks against homosexuality as well as other sin!" It is too the studier and even better than that…one who has Holy Spirit guidance that they will see! Some words in the bible have various meanings but in King James English language, to us they seem like definite words and they appear to only mean one thing! But this is certainly not the case…this brings it back to my point of believing why definite terms for homosexuality were not used but an umbrella terms like “Fornication” or “Fornications” were used to cover EVERY facet of fornication not just the Levitical aspects of it but all of what falls under the category fornication! So you presented only part of a full truth and like a minister Pastor Kerrigan says “A half-truth is a whole lie!”

Fornications Strong's G4202 – porneia. This one word represents two meanings within scripture which are as follows:

(Direct Link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexico...

1) Illicit sexual intercourse

a) Adultery, fornication, HOMOSEXUALITY, LESBIANISM, intercourse with animals etc.

b) Sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) Sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, 12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) Of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament the entry submitted for this word is as follows: Fornication, Fornicator G4202 Is Used:

(Direct Link to this entry and relative entries: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Search/Dictionary/v... )

(a) of "illicit sexual intercourse," in Jhn 8:41; Act 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1Cr 5:1; 6:13, 18; 2Cr 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Rev 2:21; 9:21; in the plural in 1Cr 7:2; in Mat 5:32; 19:9 it (illicit sexual intercourse) stands for, or includes, adultery; it (illicit sexual intercourse) is distinguished from it (fornication) in Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21;

(b) metaphorically, of "the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith," Rev 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2; some suggest this (the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines etc.) as the sense (in the actuality/the non-metaphoric but the actual performing act) in Rev 2:21.

So, from these two sources alone, there should be NO confusion whatsoever as to which of the two given definitions of fornication, a particular scripture is referring to. The scriptures that refer to fornication as illicit sexual intercourse are specifically identified as well as the scriptures that refer to fornication as the metaphorical association with pagan idolatry!

So just to further break it down…what the TDNT reading is saying is the following:

(a) of "illicit sexual intercourse," in Jhn 8:41; Act 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1Cr 5:1; 6:13, 18; 2Cr 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Rev 2:21; 9:21; in the plural in 1Cr 7:2; in Mat 5:32; 19:9 it (illicit sexual intercourse) stands for, or includes, adultery; it (illicit sexual intercourse) is distinguished from it (fornication) in Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21;

1. The following verses that deal with illicit sexual intercourse in the forms listed for a, b, and c of the word fornication of Strong’s 4202 are Jhn 8:41; Act 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1Cr 5:1; 6:13, 18; 2Cr 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Rev 2:21; 9:21

2. The following verses that specifically stand for and include the adultery aspect of illicit sexual intercourse as it relates to the word fornication of Strong’s 4202 are 1Cr 7:2; Mat 5:32; 19:9

3. The following verses that specifically distinguishes the illicit sexual intercourse aspect (a, b, and c) of the entire meaning of the word fornication of Strong’s 4202 are 1Cr 7:2; Mat 5:32; 19:9

AND

(b) metaphorically, of "the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines of, and professed adherence to, the Christian faith," Rev 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2; some suggest this (the association of pagan idolatry with doctrines etc.) as the sense (in the actuality/the non-metaphoric but the actual performing act) in Rev 2:21.

1. The following verses that deal with the metaphorical aspect of pagan idolatry doctrine type fornication of Strong’s 4202 are Rev 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2

2. The following verse that deals with the non-metaphorical but the actual pagan idolatry type fornication of Strong’s 4202 is Rev 2:21

Now let’s see what the bible really says in some of these passages…specifically the red writing, Jesus speaking passages as it relations to fornication in the illicit sexual form i.e. homosexuality/lesbianism, incest, and adultery etc.! Since individuals say that the bible does not condemn homosexuality but I am about to disprove that right now!

Mat 15:19 & Mar 7:21 are passages from two of the gospels that both express the same idea only from different points of view …so to deal with one gives the same meaning of the other! I’ve chosen Mat 15:19-20 and it reads “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications (of the specific facet that deals with homosexuality/lesbianism etc.), thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” This is a verse from the message in which my bible titles “What Defiles a Man” and it spans from v. 1-20! Thus, we see that Jesus is making it very clear that sexual immorality in the form of Strong’s 4202:

1) Illicit sexual intercourse

a) Adultery, fornication, HOMOSEXUALITY, LESBIANISM, intercourse with animals etc.

b) Sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) Sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, 12

Makes an individual unclean. How can I say that I can say that because Defiles = Strong's G2840

1) to make common

a) to make (Levitically) unclean (the OT specific form), render unhallowed, defile, profane

b) to declare or count unclean (the general inclusive form)

Now let us go even further to see what the scripture says about an unclean individual! Eph 5:5, a verse from a passage titled in my bible “The Old Life and the New” (wow you mean we are going to see some LIFESTLYES addressed here)! Just keep reading! This reading is very extensive it spans from Eph 4:17 to Eph 6:24. It is a complete message addressing lifestyles! I will reference Eph 5:1-6 and it reads “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour. But fornication (Strong’s 4202), and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.”

Now just with these two scriptures alone I’ve already debunked three of your claims 1) That Jesus has never said anything about homosexuality and 2) that the bible does not condemn homosexuality and 3) Homosexuality is not sin but a God giv


Sarena 3 years ago

Furthermore....David & Jonathan were not LOVERS....the penalty for HOMOSEXUALITY was Death and it is evident they were not homosexual lovers for they were not stoned to death! If carnal minds would read the passages in its entirety and reference the original bible languages of the text then they would get a clear understanding that the Love of Jonathan & David was covenant of respect and HONOR not of SEX and FORNICATION and ABOMINATION!

Now, when I read 1st and 2nd Samuel I then understand why David & Jonathans love was so deep but not once do I see it on a homosexual level but more so, on a level of the utmost honor to what I would consider in the eyes of some…an undeserving man! I will explain but first let me give short summary of the passages and how they lead up to David & Jonathan’s relationship!

1 Samuel 1-2 = Talks about the Birth of Samuel (He was a judge or prophet of Israel during the days of Saul and David) his Mother’s gratefulness to God for blessing her with the son she desired!

1 Samuel 2-3 = Talks about how Samuel was called by the Lord to judge the sons of Eli because they were wicked and the bible says they knew not the Lord!

1 Samuel 4-7 = Talks about the wars between Israel and heathen nations; it also talks about the battle over the Ark of the Covenant which was removed by the Philistines.

1 Samuel 8-11 = Talks about how the people of Israel demanded that they be ruled no longer by God but by a King so that they can be like the heathen nations! So this was their rejection of God, but God gave them as they requested so Samuel (God’s Chosen) appointed Saul as King. These chapters also discuss the triumph over the Ammonites.

1 Samuel 12-14 = Talks about Samuel’s words to the people on how they should continue to obey God and continue to trust him in all things even in battle. However, it also tells how Saul and the people were in fear when they first come face to face with the Philistines; they feared because their number was great and because Saul was weak and the people were fearful Saul was rebuked by Samuel. And basically Samuel does what Saul should have done and he is accompanied by Jonathan and they put the Philistines to flee!

A key point to note that prophecies the coming about of David is in 1Sam 13:13-14 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him [to be] captain over his people, because thou hast not kept [that] which the LORD commanded thee

Here we see how Samuel prophecies how David will be called of the Lord and reign as captin over His people!

1 Samuel 15-19 = Once again Saul disobeys the command of the Lord by sparing a King of the Amalekites (a heathen nation) so then once again Samuel had to go and do what Saul should have done! This was the final straw because Saul was then rejected as King and David was now chosen to be King! David began to do the will of the Lord by warring against the heathen nations and one of the more popular David battles was his fight against Goliath. David’s pleasing of the Lord caused Saul to hate him and even tries to kill him!

Now the passage gets to the point where it talks about David & Jonathan’s relationship but I have to give a bit more preliminary explanations of the story so it shows why Jonathan loved David so much! David was a youth as the bible calls it yet he had the utmost bravery and faith in God to go up against Giants i.e. Goliath because in 1 Sam 17:11 Saul as well as All of Israel were afraid and dismayed but it was a mere youth, David, who brought back the head of a Philistine, Goliath, and he defeated him not be a sword but thru the help of the Lord! Keep in mind that earlier on in chapter 14, Jonathan lead an attack against the Philistines but the attack only put them to flee but they were not defeated (1Sam 14:16-23 is titled in my bible The Philistines flee!). But when David defeated the champion of the Philistines…this made way for the men of Israel to purse them and destroy them and their tents (1 Sam 17:50-58). Now this leads to dealing with the passage you particularly addressed (1 Sam 18: 1-4). Now Jonathan is the Son of Saul but keep in mind the Lord said that through Saul his kingdom shall not continue but it will be through a man who is after the heart of the Lord, David! So this means that Jonathan, what we would call the prince, would not be King, in chapter 15 Saul was reject as King so someone would be King in his place but it would not be his son Jonathan, but David, the friend of Jonathan!

Moving on to 1 Samuel 18: 1-4. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that [was] upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.The two key points I wish to explain more in this passage are the covenant and this act that Jonathan portrayed!

1. Covenant has various meanings (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexico... but the basic meaning to take from this word in that passage of scripture is that David & Jonathan made an agreement/pledge and an alliance of friendship between each other! A commentary further explains this covenant in the following way: Jonathan's covenant with David. Jonathan faithfully promises that he would let David know how he found his father affected towards him. It will be kindness to ourselves and to ours, to secure an interest in those whom God favours, and to make his friends ours. True friendship rests on a firm basis, and is able to silence ambition, self-love, and undue regard for others. But who can fully understand the love of Jesus, who gave himself as a sacrifice for rebellious, polluted sinners! how great then ought to be the (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries... ). The passage of scripture that confirms this quote in the Matthew Henry Concise Commentary is when Jonathan tells David that his father seeks to kill him… 1Sa 19:1-4

2. Now upfront….Jonathan’s act seems questionable BUT if we read to the next verse we can get an absolute clear understand as to why Jonathan did what he did and the symbolism behind it. The next verse reads “And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, [and] behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.” Earlier we saw that Jonathan was the one who lead attacks against the Heathen nations and now in v.5 we see that Saul has now set David as the leader over the men of war. So now, this clearly explains what Jonathan was doing, Jonathan was simply transferring his position of leadership in battle to David (Keep in mind that David was not equipped with the attire that Jonathan gave him, he defeated Goliath with 5-smooth stones and took the head of the head of Goliath with the sword of Goliath) so it makes sense why Jonathan gave David his garments of battle and it make sense why v.5 echoes the point of David being appointed a leader in battle/leader over the men of war!

3. From this we can also further understand why David declared these words 2Sam 1:26 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. Now often times I’ve heard it said that David said that Jonathan loved him more than he loved a woman but what the scripture is actually saying is that Jonathan’s love towards David (act of love) surpasses the love (act of love) of women (in general) towards David (The phrase “Jonathan loved David more than a woman” is not the same interpreta


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Sarena.

Since you went to such an extraordinary length to promote your view, I think it only fair to let others read it.

As regards David and Jonathan, the jury will always be out, but the balance of probabilities is that they had a sexual relationship. The fact that, one of them was the King's son, probably helped them get away with it.

Regarding Jesus and his attitude to homosexuals and homosexuality, I will quote one greek word. "pais". If you are such an expert on the Bible, you should know the significance of this little word, in the context of the centurion and his servant. I don't need to say any more.


Diego 3 years ago

I tried not to but I pitty you. Only from how you write it is more than obvious that you have a terrible need of intimacy and communion with the Lord God. Also, you say a couple of lies and I think you know it. Either way, the truth of the Lord overcomes all, may he bless you profoundly, brother! :)


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Why pity me? I'm perfectly content and I have a good close and loving relationship with Jesus. I hope you are eventually blessed the same way.


Aaron Saltzer 3 years ago

Ruth and Naomi were in-laws. Since incest is condemned in both the O.T. and the N.T., and I've found no evidence that the vow Ruth made to Naomi is (or was) used in heterosexual marriages, and since there is nothing, from what I've heard, in the original Hebrew text of Ruth to indicate any sexual relationship between them, I don't think it's wise to claim that they were in a homosexual relationship. People can think what they want about their relationship, but their view is baseless.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 3 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

As regards Ruth and Naomi, opinion is divided. There can be no doubt though, that the vows they took to each other, were the basis of the marriage vows. Odd, if they were not lovers.


Ray 2 years ago

Lol.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Is that the best you can do Ray?


lew 2 years ago

Horrible exegesis of scripture. Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and John, David and Jonathan.... horrible, horrible, horrible. Not a shred of scripture stated, just an opinion backed by could be, maybe, I think, my opinion, someone else said, but don't name names. You will surely face the consequences of such leading people down the wrong path.

In both the O.T and the N.T. homosexuality is dealt with by Jesus and Paul. The O.T. is dealt with by God (Jesus) in the flesh himself.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.

Romans 1:16-32 (ASV)


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

If I had a dollar for every time some bigot quoted the above passage at me, I would be a rich man.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Lew,

You make the unfounded claim that homosexuality is dealt with by Jesus, and that is patently absurd. Not once does Jesus come even remotely close to any discussion of homosexuality, and He knew homosexuals in His time, since it was common in Roman and Greek society for men to have male partners, even though they had families. Their families were considered property, and that property consisted of a wife to bear children and tend the household, servants, livestock and land. Only men had any value, and homosexual relationships were quite common and socially acceptable. Jesus would have been quite familiar with men and their homosexual relationships, yet not once does He even mention them.

Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." All the writings of Paul are translated and explained for you.

Brian


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

They spoke a little differently in the bible days then they do now. Their metaphors, euphemisms, etc, were those of the Hebrews, from ancient times. So their language is nothing like ours.

You have to look at everything going on and everything that was said.

You have to study God's word and seek out the truth, you can't just read it.

David really loved women, A Lot

(1) David was married to Jonathan’s sister, Michal—and he had a few other wives, and

(2) David’s biggest blunder was his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba—a woman he saw bathing on a rooftop.

God was not happy about David’s lust or with his decision to have Bathsheba’s husband killed so he could hide his sin.

David and Jonathan had a model friendship. Scripture says Jonathan loved David “as himself” (1 Sam. 18:3). This is the true love of God

The English New Testament Says:John 15:13

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Jonathan’s love was selfless and heroic. Even though he was in line to be the next king of Israel, he recognized

David would step into that role—and Jonathan not only celebrated his friend as the rightful king but also protected him from his father’s spear-throwing tantrums.

Jonathan’s love was not lust. It was the ultimate in sacrifice. He laid down his rights so his friend could be promoted.

He opposed his father’s self-willed ambition and instead affirmed that David should be the true king.

Jonathan showed us all how to be a true friend. David really loved women, that’s why he said Jonathan’s love was more wonderful.

Although the love of a woman was great, Jonathan’s was wonderful.

The Love Of God Always Is

David’s comment that his friend’s love was “more wonderful than the love of women” was not sexual; he was praising Jonathan’s loyalty and brotherly devotion.

We usually compare something we like, to something we like the same or more. They did the same


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

That is true, the bible does not condemn homosexuality nor gay people. They are as much of God as anyone.

They have found new thoughts on not so new events that occur and that

may be responsible for people being born gay and transgender. I just wrote about it


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Maybe they were just bisexual Deborah. That was nothing unusual in their day and in ours either.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Maybe, but it seems it would have said something about it, since God loved David and he became the King. It mentions other, sex out of wedlock relationships

Who knows


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality," and go to the chapter on David and Jonathan. All of the Hebrew is translated for you so that you can see what the original language really says about the relationship between these two men. You will never get it all just by reading the English translation of the Bible, because the translators of the King James version, and all the ones that followed, tried to use only single-word translations, a verbatim translation, which does not work for accuracy. This book takes you back to the original, then shows you why the relationship between David and Jonathan was more than just two friends.

Brian


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I know the bible doesn't condemn it, neither do I.

But that doesn't prove Jonathan and David were lovers

I read and speak Hebrew, and I am Jewish

You might want to read my earlier comments


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

“And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

And Saul took him that day, and would let him go home no more to his father’s house.

Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”

The word “knit,” קשר “qashar” in Hebrew, would best be translated as “to physically bind together,” but when it is used to discuss a love relationship, then qashar really means that the two people love each other in the strongest way possible. Just saying their souls were knit together does not convey as much information in modern language. What the early Hebrew writer says here is that Jonathan and David fell into a strong love for each other, a love that was surpassed by no other. This was not a love where physical attraction could be satisfied with a night spent together exchanging passion. This was a lasting love, so much so that more than just their physical bodies were attracted to each other; their very souls were in love. And, of course, time would prove this to be correct, because David held Jonathan in his heart for the rest of his life as the greatest love he had ever known. Years later, when Jonathan had been killed on the battlefield, even though David had not seen him since they were forced apart by Saul, David lamented the loss in this verse, II Samuel 1:26:

“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.”

Now, when Jonathan strips his own clothes off, some like to suggest that stripping one’s clothes off means the same today as it did then, a prequel to sex. Actually, what is happening here is Jonathan is showing his love for David in several ways by this act. One, he wants to give something to David to seal the covenant they have just made with each other, a covenant to love each other forever. The word for covenant ברית “berith,” means an alliance that is like a marriage. This requires a gift on the part of Jonathan, because he is the one who is pursuing the relationship, even though it is mutually desired. We see Jonathan as the primary initiator of this relationship, and as such, he needs to seal the covenant of love, much like a marriage contract, with a gift of special importance. Jonathan gives David his expensive sword and bow, and in the eagerness to show how much David means to him, he gives David everything he is wearing at the moment, right down to his “girdle,” חגור “chagor.” The girdle was the sash that tied a person’s robes together by wrapping around the body several times. A princely girdle, such as one that Jonathan would have worn, would have been made of costly materials, and it would have been an exquisitely woven work of art. These girdles were just like jewelry, so for Jonathan to give this was like giving David a jeweled ring he was wearing. Jonathan was obviously very excited about what he saw in David, and he could have given him lands, servants, even treasure. Instead, he took off his clothes, especially his girdle, and gave them to David. This is Jonathan symbolically wrapping his total being around David and saying to him, “I want to be yours, and I want you to be mine.”


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

David lives in the royal household with Jonathan from that day forward. Gradually, David becomes more popular than Saul among the people of Israel, and Saul begins to hate his new “son-in-law.” Saul launches several unsuccessful plots to have David assassinated, and on one occasion, he is questioning his son, Jonathan about the failure of David to appear at the feast of the New Moon, at which David would have sat with King Saul. David had actually gone into hiding for his own safety, and Jonathan is set to determine whether Saul intends on killing David, or whether it is safe for David to return to the royal household. Jonathan gives Saul an excuse for David, saying that he is visiting relatives, and Saul explodes in front of everyone.

I Samuel 20:30-31:

“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.”

The words “Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman,” would be best translated “You son of a whore.” Saul is not calling Achinoam, Jonathan’s mother, a whore. Saul is calling Jonathan a derogatory term in order to show how low he thinks Jonathan is for his relationship with David, and he uses sexual terminology to denote the type of relationship Jonathan has with David. Saul is clearly categorizing Jonathan’s relationship with David. Had this been a totally different type of relationship, such as a political liaison with someone who was of an enemy tribe, Saul would have couched his terminology in ways that would have denoted such. They certainly would not have been sexual. In this culture, if you want to praise a man, speak of his birth as that of some great man. If you want to degrade him, speak of his birth as that of some low woman. One makes him a man, the other makes him a woman, the greatest debasement possible. The modern phrase “mama’s boy” does not convey the same depth of harsh degradation as the phrasing Saul is using here. Saul’s slurs offend with great shame.

Saul goes on to use the words “nakedness” and “shame,” more words of a sexual connotation. “Nakedness,” ערוה “ervah,” is a term used in reference to sex, such as when someone’s “nakedness” has been “uncovered,” meaning that someone has exposed a man’s genitals for sex. When Saul says that he knows all about Jonathan’s “choice” of David, he is telling the whole court that he knows about their intimate relationship, and he degrades the relationship by saying that Jonathan’s choosing of David was to Jonathan’s “own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.” Saul uses the word בשת “bosheth,” in Hebrew, which the King James translates as confusion, but is actually “shame.” Thus, it would read better as Jonathan’s “own shame and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness.” In the time of Saul, a way to shame someone was to parade them naked in public. What Saul is saying is that Jonathan is parading himself publicly in a way that is like that of a woman who is searching for a male lover. He doesn’t compare Jonathan’s “shame” to a man’s “nakedness,” which would be political shame, as in when male captives were forced to march naked, but Saul, instead, compares Jonathan’s “shame” to the “shame” of a woman, especially to his mother. Women were only for raising heirs to the male lineage, such was the male chauvinism of that time. They were property, owned by the male, their nakedness shown only when time to arouse a sexual suitor, and Saul chose his words for maximum insult. Jonathan was not only being called a woman, but one who was acting like a whore, the ultimate insult to a male.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Keep in mind that Saul was aware of the need for his male heir, Jonathan, to succeed him on the throne, and Saul was also aware of the ever-increasing popularity of David among the people. Saul felt that the relationship between his son and David was politically reckless. Jonathan, acting as the passive lover to David, would have easily given up his position as ruler to rule beside, or under, David. Saul knew this, and said, “For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom.” If it were not a possibility, Saul would not have added weight to that pronouncement by then saying, “Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.”

Saul uses the word “chosen,” בחר “bachar,” to indicate that Jonathan has made a decision of commitment, like choosing a bride, a choice that is one of permanence and high value given by both partners with regard to each other. Jonathan has made a great decision, not a light one, and his decision was to place David in his heart and treat David as his primary love. I Samuel 20:17:

“And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

How often have the words “One soul in two bodies,” been used to describe a great love? As time passed, Saul’s animosity toward David grew to such an extent, that David had to go into hiding, yet the love of Jonathan for David, and likewise, David’s love of Jonathan, never diminished. In spite of the necessity of David’s going into hiding, they still found ways to see each other. Eventually, there came a time when it was necessary for David to leave the country, since Saul was getting ever closer to having him assassinated. Jonathan and David arranged to meet alone one last time in a field outside of the city. This meeting is described in I Samuel 20:41-42:

“And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of the place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.”

“Until David exceeded,” these words cause a lot of supposed scholars a certain amount of unrest, because the literal meaning of this part of the sentence is that David got an erection. Whether or not he ejaculated is uncertain, because we are missing words here that would have completed the sentence and given us the complete picture. Apparently the scribe who transcribed the manuscript that survived felt it necessary to leave out those words, or he accidentally left them out and never caught his error, but many experts feel that certain words were, indeed, omitted that would have completed the thought. However it happened, we may never know. But, we do have the words “ad David higdil,” which translates “until David enlarged.” David and Jonathan knew that this was probably going to be the last time they would ever see each other, and while David, ever the politically correct man, bowed three times to show his respect for the high royal status of Jonathan, it was only moments before they were in each other’s arms. I most definitely don’t think that they kissed without embracing. David said that Jonathan’s love surpassed that of women. Therefore, it is impossible for me to see these two not being in each other’s arms as they enjoyed what they both felt would be the last time together. And, when people are in love, and they know they only get one more time together, given the opportunity, they go for it. They kissed, and they wept, and they enjoyed each other for an undetermined length of time, but, in the end of it, David “exceeded.” The key word here is actually “ad,” “until.” For those who like to translate that this phrase to mean that David wept longer than Jonathan, such an attempt is just pure nonsense. David was the alpha male in this relationship, and Jonathan was more the emotional, heartfelt pursuer in his role. If this was a matter of who wept the longest, then the vote would have gone to Jonathan. But the word “until” tells us that the kissing, and embracing, and weeping, and being close to each other one last time, all of this emotion and mutual enjoyment of the moment went on “until” something happened, that something being the climax of it all, and that was that David “got an erection and ejaculated.” The only word there is the word in Hebrew meaning “to make large,” or “to grow large.” I think that David enjoyed Jonathan “until” he was fulfilled sexually. Higdil is the Hiphil Causative of גדל gadal,” meaning “he caused to become large.” The best parallel for the correct translation of gadal here is to look at Ezekiel 16:26:

“Thou hast committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbors, great of flesh (gidley basar)...”גִּדְלֵי בָשָׂר

The English words “great of flesh” actually are the translators’ attempt to use a euphemism rather than say what it literally does in the Hebrew, and that is, “well hung.” “Gidley basar” is literally “enlarged penis,” or, “big of penis.” “Gidley” is a form of “gadal.” I have to chuckle when I read the sanitized version that is found in some Bibles, “...with your neighbors, the lustful Egyptians...” The NJB translation gets it right with the words “...your big-membered neighbors...” Now some people think that the writers of the Old Testament had the same prudishness about matters of a sexual nature as we do today, and that would be incorrect. True, there were words that bothered them, just as there are words that bother some people of religious backgrounds today, but the words that bothered them are not the words that bother us. For example, Staying with Ezekiel, let’s look at Ezekiel 23:20:

“For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and who issue is like the issue of horses.”

The words “flesh of asses” is literally the “penis (basar) of donkeys,” and the “issue of horses” is literally the “semen of the ejaculation of horses.” Ezekiel says that Israel lusted after Egyptians whose male sex organs were like those of donkeys and whose ejaculations were like those of stallions. (Note once again, we see the double insult, calling Israel not only a woman, but a whore as well. No man in Israel thought of his nation as anything but masculine, all male.) So, if Ezekiel had no problem with these seemingly lewd words, it is apparent that they weren’t among the words that had to be modified in his day, words like “temple prostitutes.” Still, why we only have the unfinished phrase, “until David enlarged,” is a problem argued even today by theologians on both sides of the fence.

Nonetheless, “higdil” means that the passage is speaking of David’s penis and the fact that he got an erection from the excitement of their embracing. Men loving men was not considered abnormal in this time and place. Only Jonathan’s seeming passivity, in the eyes of Saul, was cause for concern, and that only for the obvious reasons we mentioned. Jonathan began this relationship with David in full view of Saul and with Saul’s blessing, so this male-to-male relationship was not out of the ordinary, thereby showing that homosexuality was part of the accepted and very fluid sexuality of the time.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Finally, II Samuel 1:26:

“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.”

The relationship between Jonathan and David was very much like the male-to-male relationships that were common in the Roman and Greek society in the days of Jesus. Men had male lovers for great conversation and sex, and they had women as wives in order to raise male heirs and maintain the household. Some like to say that this would best be described as bisexuality. I would disagree only in that men were much more fluid in their sexuality than to be limited to any labels. There were various degrees of sexual attraction, and I go into that more in the section of this book dealing with the New Testament, but suffice it say here that Jonathan and David undoubtedly enjoyed each other in all aspects, sexually being one of them. And such relationships did not mean that they did not have wives or children. That was expected. Jonathan produced children, one of whom survived, Mephibosheth, and David produced many children, as well. But, the idea of the household was property, not love. And everyone belonged in that household as property—except for the father. He owned the household. Thus, men could have male-to-male relations that went to any level, and that relationship did not diminish on any account of the household.

This is necessary to understand for several reasons, the most primary being that some will point to Jonathan’s having children, and David’s having children, as proof that they did not have a homosexual relationship, and this is extremely naive and unscholarly. The second is to note the full meaning, therefore, of this passage from I Samuel 20:14-17:

“And thou shalt not only while I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not:

But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth.

So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David’s enemies.

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”

Prior to the discussion in this passage, David had asked Jonathan to find out why his father was angry with him, and he then asked, as well, that if his father intended to kill him, to please not send him back to Saul, but to let him die at the hands of Jonathan, instead. Jonathan reassured him that under no circumstances would he allow Saul, nor anyone else for that matter, to kill David. He told David to hide in his usual hideaway, and that he would find out what Saul’s plans were. If they were indeed to have David killed, then Jonathan would come and tell David and then make arrangements for David to flee safely into exile. It is after this discussion that the passage in verse 14-17 takes place. In this we see that Jonathan exacts a pledge for a lifetime, and beyond, that being that the household of Jonathan will always be shown the “kindness of the LORD” by the household of David. And Jonathan did not ask David to swear by this “marriage” (covenant) once, but twice (“And Jonathan caused David to swear again...”) because “...he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.” What began when Jonathan fell in love with David at that first sighting, this was what Jonathan wanted to make a monument to, to proclaim their love for each other forever, that even in death, Jonathan would be remembered by David. And it was so.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee a lot of things you say are true. But the rank of a gay person would be even with the rank of a eunuch. A gay person would not be appointed King, anymore than a eunuch would, by man or God.

You have to have everything in context

Theirs was Godly love


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

In the days of David and Jonathan, the term gay did not exist, nor did the word homosexual. A eunuch would be someone who had either been castrated as a child specifically to be sold into slavery and for use in the temples, or as a servant to the king, or someone who had voluntarily dedicated themselves to this caste. Men had sexual relationships with other men as a common practice, but such was not considered immoral nor degrading, unless one of the men acted feminine. Women were considered property, equal to cattle, and were treated with a completely different set of rules. It was a completely male chauvinistic society. Women were not considered the objects for conversation and deep relationships. They were to produce heirs, especially the all-valuable male. Under Judaic laws, for example, if a woman gave birth, she was unclean for sixty-six days if the child born was a female, but only half that if the child born was a male. Men had relationships with men in ways that today's society could not even imagine. The relationship of Jonathan and David was indeed godly, because homosexuality is no more evil than is heterosexuality.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I know what a Eunuch is. Regardless of what being gay was or was not known as, the act of it was well known. In those days they were called effeminates. My husband is Hebrew, born in Israel and we both speak Hebrew and Greek.

We know the customs. Every school child is taught the Tanakh as history, and every Judicial Judge must be literate in it.

As much as you wish they were, Jonathan and David were not gay, . I explained it all in my first long comment here


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee

I also know being gay is no more wrong, in God's eyes, than being straight.

But that doesn't make David and Jonathan gay, sorry....

Saul knew about their friendship, so did his tribe, and Jonathan was going to be made King, if he hadn't wanted David to be. Jonathan and David knew God, and knew God had also chosen David as King.

David would never have been appointed King by his Elders, if he had been gay.

David loved women so much, he had the husband of the one that he desired, beheaded.

He wasn't gay or bisexual. Obviously you are very unfamiliar with the true love of God. Didn't He tell us to love our neighbor as ourselves?

That's all they were doing, loving one another.

1 Samuel 18:1

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

People today want to make something dirty out of it. Sex wasn't involved. I think teaching that they were gay, isn’t making God too happy. To say it was *lustful sex, and not true Godly love, is sad, and blasphemy*(even if people love each other, it would still be considered as such)

Taking a robe off, does not make someone nude. A robe is an outer garment, that covers other garments. But you have Jonathan pictured naked.

Amazing how your mind went there first ! Making the love of God, something Carnal


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee

David was there between 15-22 years of age during this period.

David spent 7 years in Saul's Palace. So you saying men did those things all the time (which IS NOT true), did not apply, because he was just a boy.

1 Samuel 16-20

Jewish people did not, and still don’t, consider someone to be a man until he reaches the age of 40.

By Matthew Henry

“The friendship of David and Jonathan was the effect of Divine grace, which produces in true believers one heart and one soul, and causes them to love each other. This union of souls is from partaking in the Spirit of Christ. Where God unites hearts, carnal matters are too weak to separate them. Those who love Christ as their own souls, will be willing to join themselves to him in an everlasting covenant. It was certainly a great proof of the power of God's grace in David, that he was able to bear all this respect and honour, without being lifted up above measure.”

As I said: Taking a robe off, does not make someone nude.

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown

4. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David—To receive any part of the dress which had been worn by a sovereign, or his eldest son and heir, is deemed, in the East, the highest honor which can be conferred on a subject (see on [245]Es 6:8). The girdle, being connected with the sword and the bow, may be considered as being part of the military dress, and great value is attached to it in the East.

From Gill’s Exposition

And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him,.... As a token of his hearty love and true friendship, and that David might appear at court not in the habit of a shepherd, but in that of a prince:

and gave it to David, and his garments; his other garments besides his robe, and so clothed him from tip to toe, and which fitted him; for as there was a similarity in their souls, and the disposition of them, so in the make and hulk of their bodies, and in the stature of them:

even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle; these he gave him to accoutre himself with, that he might appear as a soldier, as well as like a prince, and as another Jonathan, or rather the same; that they might seem as one, as alike in body, so in garb and habit.

Presents of clothes or rich robes, as tokens of respect or friend- ship, are frequent in the East.

Genesis 41:42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph's …

Esther 6:8,9 Let the royal apparel be brought which the king uses to wear, and …

Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my …

Luke 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and …


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Was knit with the soul of David - The same forcible phrase occurs of Jacob's love for Benjamin (marginal reference). Jonathan's truly heroic character is shown in this generous love of David, and admiration of his great deed.

Jacob aka Israel, was chosen by God, was married and had twelve sons who became the Twelve Tribes of Israel

But, if I say someone was married of course you will say he was bisexual


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

I never said that Jonathan and David were gay, which would indicate that they lived as exclusively homosexual, since David eventually had many wives, thus indicating that he had a propensity for heterosexual activities, as well. But, he did note that his relationship with Johnathan surpassed all the women he had ever known. That's David's own words. If you study ancient history, then you will see that men had homosexual relationships commonly in that time in history. Anti-homosexual bigotry was artificially introduced under the auspices of the Nicenes during the reign of Emperor Constantine as a political movement during the Fourth Century.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

David was anointed king in Saul’s place at age 15 years old.

David was also 15 years old when he killed Goliath, the same year he was anointed by Samuel as king.

Jonathan was 42 years old when David killed Goliath and it was then that they first formed a friendship.

Other nationalities may, but Hebrew/Jewish men do not go around molesting 15 year olds.

Jonathan was 27 years older than David

You are confusing Hebrews with Americans and others

Jewish people obey God a lot more than others.

We abide by the 613 laws, statutes and judgements


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee

I have studied ancient Hebrew history. They taught it in school and I'm Jewish.

That was true of the Greeks but not the Hebrews!

They were not bisexual or gay.

Yes David said that because he was talking about the love of God being better than the love of women. The men expressed themselves that way.

David was expressing his Godly love, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you? NOPE.. you have a dirty mind, and the lack of love.

If you ever had Godly love you would know what David meant, but you don't. It's known in Greek as AGAPE love.

I've explained this to you several times, but you disregarded it. I posted what the other scholars said, and you disregarded them too.

You think you know more than anyone else, and you're not even Hebrew.

YOUR AMAZING


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

The laws found in the Book of Leviticus, were temple ritual laws.

These laws were not written for the Gentiles (any non Jewish person),

but they WERE for the Jewish people. Gentiles do not have to obey the Levitical laws, the Jewish do.

Leviticus demands that the Jewish men to abstain from homosexual acts.

David and Jonathan were men of God, Hebrew and Jewish.

They would never have lost their relationship with God by doing these acts prohibited in the law, If they had, God would not have blessed them, or allowed David to be king.

God wanted upright men for His name's sake.

I think you need to take it all in context instead of picking verses you think proves your point, because you haven't proven anything yet.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

As I said before, gay men and eunuchs were socially on the same level, and neither could be chosen as a King. The other other reason is that when God appointed a King, he was a man of honor who kept God’s laws, and could not dishonor God’s name, or make Him look bad. He had to have the love of God, in order to lead his people.

All looked to the King, and had their eyes on him

You can tell what a person loves by what he devotes himself to most passionately. What a person values most is reflected in his actions and motivations. It is plain in the Old Testament that God’s highest value, his greatest love, is his own name. From the beginning of Israel’s history to the end of the Old Testament era God was moved by this great love. He says through Isaiah that he created Israel “for his glory” (Isaiah 43:7): “You are my servant Israel in whom I will be glorified” (Isaiah 49:3).

So when God delivered Israel from bondage in Egypt and preserved them in the wilderness it was because he was acting for his own name’s sake, “that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations” (Ezekiel 20:9, 14, 22; cf Exodus 14:4). And when God drove out the other nations from the Promised Land of Canaan, he was “making himself a name” (2 Samuel 7:23). Then finally at the end of the Old Testament era, after Israel had been taken into captivity in Babylon, God plans to have mercy and save his people. He says, “For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you…For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 48:9, 11 cf. Ezekiel 36:22, 23, 32). From these scriptures we can see how much God loves his own glory and how deeply committed he is to preserving the honor of his name.


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

@Deborah Sexton, thank you so much for that refreshing note, and most of all of the great research you did. Your arguments are solid and biblical. And it is true that today many homosexuals not understanding the type of love that men can have for each, or women for each other as simply good friends, or as brothers/sisters, maliciously impugn the sincerity of that love to support their own lifestyle.

You showed very clearly that though the Greek culture allowed for homosexuality the Jewish culture was very different. God job!


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

The ages of David and Jonathan are not known as facts. This point is much debated, so for anyone to simply say, as fact, that Jonathan was in his late forties when he met David, and that David was a mere child of fifteen years of age, is extremely unscholarly. In the September 2010 "Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society," a very erudite discussion by Leslie McFall sheds light on the fact that we cannot state with authority the exact ages of David and Jonathan, and that this point will always be open to discussion. I would suggest you read it, and go to page 500, wherein you will see that the very educated author suggests therein that Jonathan and David may have been approximately 21 and 20 respectively.

Let's look at some facts. Those who try to date everything from the reign of Saul need to look closely at the original Hebrew text of I Samuel 13:1 "Saul was (thirty) years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel (forty) two years." Why the parentheses? Because the numbers 30 and 40 are omitted in the original Hebrew, and they do not even appear in the first copy of the Septuagint. Any correct translation of this passage in English-language Bibles properly indicates this.

Let's look at when boys were finally considered men at that time and era. Numbers 1:3 "You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the MEN in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army." Now, let's look at I Samuel 16:18 where one of Saul's servants describes David: "One of the servants answered, 'I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play a harp. He is a BRAVE MAN and a WARRIOR. He speaks well, and is a fine-looking MAN. And the Lord is with him.'" This description of David is BEFORE he slays Goliath.

Not my words, but those of people who lived at that time in history, and I will take their word over anyone's who is living in THIS time in history as to what is a man and what is a child.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

"But the rank of a gay person would be even with the rank of a eunuch. A gay person would not be appointed King, anymore than a eunuch would, by man or God."

I love this sentence. Gays and eunuchs are cast as unworthy of the love of God in one fell swoop of the pen. My highest arbiter of God's love is the Son of God, Himself, Jesus Christ, who said, in Matthew 19:12: "For there are eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. To him who can comprehend, that is enough."

I will take the love of Jesus over the prejudice and bigotry of mankind any day.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

I love these lines:

"I have studied ancient Hebrew history. They taught it in school and I'm Jewish.

That was true of the Greeks but not the Hebrews!

They were not bisexual or gay."

Let's look at REAL ancient Jewish history. II Kings 23:7 "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites..." Funny, in the original Hebrew, it does not say that he broke down the houses of people who were citizens of Sodom. What does the Hebrew actually say? It says "qadeshim," masculine for "holies." Why is the word sodomites used here? Because by the time this English translation appeared (17th Century), any act of homosexuality was considered an act of sodomy. Thus, the word sodomy was erroneously inserted. To correctly translate this passage, we must go back and first insert what is in the original Paleo-Hebrew texts, and that word is "holies." Then, we must study ancient history to know what, or who, the "holies" were; they were male temple prostitutes, a sacred profession patronized by MALE Israelites for centuries. In Deuteronomy 23:17, we read the admonition to the Israelites that they are to make certain that none of their daughters or SONS engages in this profession - "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of he SONS of Israel." For both the words "whore" and "sodomites" the word "holies" in Paleo-Hebrew is used.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

I love when people go racing to the book of Leviticus for proof that homosexuality is condemned by God...but they follow ABSOLUTELY NO other requirements from Leviticus. I don't see these same hypocrites sacrificing bulls, doves or sheep. I don't see them killing their children for disobedience. I don't see them stoning an old woman for picking up kindling to start a fire on the Sabbath. But they sure love to hang their bigotries on Leviticus 18:22, which does NOT say "Man shall not lie with man..." It begins with, in the original Paleo-Hebrew, "V'et zachar..." "And with a zachar..." which is the continuation of a list of admonitions not to participate in the fertility rituals of the temple of Molech, as proven by the verse immediately preceding this, wherein the admonition to NOT sacrifice your children to Molech (a common custom of the Israelites at this time) demonstrates which temple and which god is being referenced. A zachar was a male sex symbol, a dildo, made of wood, ivory, stone, clay, gold or silver, and was used for sexual rites in temple rituals of various gods and goddesses. If you don't think the Israelites engaged in such things, just look at how angry Ezekiel got when he chastised the Israelites with these words in Ezekiel 16:17 "You took your beautiful things, made of the gold and silver that I had given you, and you made yourself IMAGES OF MEN and fornicated with them." You guessed it, in the original Paleo-Hebrew, the word translated into IMAGES OF MEN is the often-used "ZACHAR." (Tsalmey zachar to be exact here, meaning "phallic images.")

Tee hee, Israelites never engaged in homosexual activity? Giggle. By the way, Leviticus 18:22 ends with the admonition that engaging in the sexual rituals of the temple of Molech would render the male "toevah hee," "ritually impure." It is asinine and extremely incorrect to insert the word "an abomination," since this is absolutely NOT what the original says. Ritual impurity, toevah, was cleansed by bathing in the tikvah, the ritual bath, before entering the temple.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

First, David’s wife was Michal, who was Saul’s daughter and the sister of Jonathan. It is not likely just for this reason, that David and Jonathan would not have been lovers.

Jonathan was Saul’s oldest son.

I never used Leviticus against gay people.

If you would actually read what I wrote, I said it was for the Jewish priests and people, and not for anyone else.

It was for David and Jonathan because they were Hebrew/Jewish.

The real Jewish History records David to be 15-22 when he lived those seven years with Saul

Sodom and Gomorrah was totally destroyed because they didn’t heed God’s word to refrain from their acts

It was God’s Divine judgment that was passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah and two neighboring cities, which were completely consumed by fire and brimstone.

Sodom and Gomorrah have become the same with shameless sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of divine retribution


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote ""But the rank of a gay person would be even with the rank of a eunuch. A gay person would not be appointed King, anymore than a eunuch would, by man or God."

I love this sentence. Gays and eunuchs are cast as unworthy of the love of God in one fell swoop of the pen. My highest arbiter of God's love is the Son of God, Himself, Jesus Christ, who said, in Matthew 19:12: "For there are eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. To him who can comprehend, that is enough."

I will take the love of Jesus over the prejudice and bigotry of mankind any day." End Quote

I didn't say eunuchs or gay people were not worthy of God's love. Stop lying. I said they would not be made a King, which is the truth, a fact.

I am not speaking about the days of Yahshua. I am speaking of a time long before he...and if you are so smart about someone elses culture, you should have known that.

I am Jewish, and I go by the Jewish bible, not the mistranslated English bible.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote " love these lines:

"I have studied ancient Hebrew history. They taught it in school and I'm Jewish.

That was true of the Greeks but not the Hebrews!

They were not bisexual or gay."" End Quote

In this you are quoting me.

When I said They were not bisexual or gay, I was speaking of Jonathan and David. My next line, when on to speak of David, so you have to follow.

I was not saying there was never any gay Hebrew people. But said it was prominent with the Greeks, but not with the Hebrews

Sodom and Gomorrah were suppose to be towns in ancient Palestine, and had Eqyptians, and Hebrews living there

Palestinas were not Hebrew, they were the enemies of the Hebrews

Abraham and Lot moved there because of the famine

In biblical times Palestine comprised the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The land was controlled at various times by the Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, and Roman empires before being conquered by the Arabs

God saved the Hebrews living there, by warning them


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote " Funny, in the original Hebrew" End Quote

My husband and I read Hebrew, you don't, so stop acting as though you do


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

He was not telling the Levitical Priests, and the Jewish people, not to do these things because they did them. The other nations did them and he said not to do as the others did.

He was instructing them, not chastising them.

In Leviticus where male homosexuality is first mentioned. Though it wasn't referring to adult male to male relationships or the common man.The rule about it was given to the Levite priests, not to the world

The priests, who not Hebrew, did these things God warned His priests not to do

The book of Leviticus consists of sacrificial and other ritual laws prescribed for the priests of the tribe of Levi."

They were set apart, and were told not to do the things everyone else was doing

Leviticus 18:24

“‘Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you,

God told them not to defile themselves as the other nations did, and got themselves cast out.

So if you were able to hear what the scriptures say, you would have known this

If you read my hub, you would also know I am not against gay people

http://deborah-sexton.hubpages.com/hub/Choice-Or-G...

Now in context”

You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD."

Leviticus18

"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves."

See,when in the context of the Levitical priesthood it was indicating that the priest's were not to immolate children to Molech as the other Nations priests had done.

Now verse 22.

22"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

Notice how it does not mention that women were not to lie with women?

You might say that they excluded woman due to their diminished status due to male chauvinistic...they didn't need to be "included".

But no...that's not the case. In the next verse they are mentioned along "with" the men.

"You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent. "

Now why is that? Because it was referring to the practices of other Nations priests. And the practice of these priests that entailed sexual fertility rites with effeminates (of a man or boy) Having behavior or mannerisms considered un-masculine or typical of a woman or girl; feminine. Also referred to as Catamites.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

The message delivered to the children of Israel, was to not do the things the Egyptians, and Canaanites (pagans) did, not to perform their rituals, and not to obey their laws

3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

The rest of Leviticus lists the laws, the ways, and the sins, of the Egyptians and Canaanites (pagans), and the punishment of Israel’s children if they did the things the pagans did, or performed any of their temple rituals, or obeyed their laws.

The Levite Priests were chosen by God, and set apart. The anti-pagan laws were very strict for the Priests.

Leviticus concerns the temple rituals, and Idolatry


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah Sexton,

You wrote: "You said Quote " Funny, in the original Hebrew" End Quote

My husband and I read Hebrew, you don't, so stop acting as though you do"

You really show your total and arrogant ignorance. I was not quoting someone else's translations, but my own. I have studied ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek for nearly fifty years, and I have a degree in both. And just because you are Jewish does not mean squat to any erudite and scholarly discussion of ancient texts. If being Jewish made you an expert, then you wouldn't have need of a rabbi. I worked on translating the Dead Sea Scrolls while you were probably still in diapers, so save your arrogant, unspiritual, condescension for someone who is easily impressed. All of your arguments are extremely flawed, based on readings from authors who are equally unscholarly. Your defense of anti-gay bigotry is tiring. You need to read the book "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." If you did, you would see how terribly flawed your kindergarten arguments really are. But, true bigots would rather cling to their bigotries than to ever learn the truth, so stick your head in the sand and keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay. You will answer to their Creator someday, and I only wish I were there to watch. God did not make any mistakes, no one is a zero, and woe to those who go around condemning other people whom God made for His divine purpose.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

You wrote:

Now in context”

You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD."

Leviticus18

"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves."

See,when in the context of the Levitical priesthood it was indicating that the priest's were not to immolate children to Molech as the other Nations priests had done."

Your point continually is that the Israelites did NOT engage in the acts that were enjoyed by the other nations, which is absolutely incorrect. Time and time again, the prophets warn Israel of her sins. Regarding sacrificing their children to Molech, Israel was just as complicit in these acts as any other nation or tribe.

Ezekiel 16:20-21 "Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and thou hast sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter?

That thou hast slain my children and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them."

Ezekiel 16:36 "...and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them."

We know by reading the Bible that we can correlate archaeological findings, and vice-versa. Archaeological excavations of a shrine to Ba’al near the city of Gezer have yielded clay jars containing the charred bones of infants and some older children, evidence that the Canaanites of the second millennium B.C., practiced the ritual of child sacrifice. Also, the Hinnom valley, located southwest of Jerusalem, was renowned for the rituals of child sacrifice that were offered there to Molech. This place was called the Topheth, or “Place of Fire,” and was even referenced by Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 7:30-32 “‘The people of Judah have done evil in my sight,’ said the Lord . . . ‘They built the high place of Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in fire. Such a thing I never commanded, nor had in mind’”

Funny how the writers of Leviticus found it unacceptable to kill children in the name of Molech, but in Leviticus 20:9, they said it was okay to kill your children in the name of the god of Israel if those children cursed you.

All of this "supposed" holiness of the ancient Israelites is absurd. Thousands of years have passed, and the absurdity of their way of living would offend both Jew and Christian today, such has been the evolution of religion and feelings of what religious beliefs should entail. Take, as an example, Genesis 38:15.

In Genesis 38:15, Judah, from whom the tribe of Judah is descended, sees what he thinks is a common prostitute sitting along the roadside. It is actually his daughter-in-law, Tamar, in disguise. She is trying to get pregnant by her father-in-law for lineage purposes, but we won’t go into that here. The point is, in the Hebrew, he refers to her as a “zonah,” a common prostitute. Christians today would not consider having sex with a prostitute at all, yet here is a leader among Israelites, a virtuous and upright man, “holy” before his god. And he has sex with Tamar, because he thinks she is a common prostitute. What has changed?

Anyone trying to use Leviticus to set religious standards for today is absolutely NOT a scholar.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I’m not anti gay, and don’t know how you see it that way. It’s just that the word of God needs to be interpreted correctly.

Because you don’t understand Leviticus and what it says.

I need a Rebbe yes, but I am one, so is my husband . Read my profile I wrote 4 years ago.

Regardless of what someone says, you will interpret it as anti gay.

Obviously you are anti God, because you’re reading something dirty into something pure.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee

If you speak Hebrew tell me what I am saying below. I wrote it in phonetics, because if you sound it out, you should recognize it as Hebrew words, if you speak Hebrew.

If I wrote it in Hebrew, you could always go to a translator

Read this simple Hebrew sentence. Comments doesn't allow anything but the English alphabet anyway

Ki eshm'rah Shabbat El yishm'reni. Ot hi l'olmey ad beyno uveyni


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

This is your chance now Deborah. Are you up for the challenge or are you a "busted flush"?

What did the man say? I haven't got a clue myself but then I'm not claiming to be a linguist. I can't wait for your answer.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

What do you mean. What challenge?

What is a "busted flush"?

What man?


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee go ahead and worship your Idol..Jesus

I worship only God

You interpret the bible the way you want to

Ben-Hinnom is where they burned their dead. Ben-Hinnom is not Molech, or any Idol


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Just translate what Hanavee said Deborah. A Hebrew speaker, like you, should have no difficulty there.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

What am I translating? What did he write? To tell you the truth Chris, I am tired of repeating myself.

I know I am not anti-gay, so I won't be posting anymore after this. I will be reading Hanavee's great Hebrew translation of what I wrote

Goodbye and God Bless


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

God bless you also Deborah.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Just one last thing

Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote

I never once said this. At least, unlike you, I'm not a liar


JoelMcLendon 2 years ago

I'm sick of you twisting Deborah's words Hanavee. She's not against gay people, and she's stated it many times. I've held back as long as I choose to, and you need to stop slandering her.

Her interpretation of Leviticus is right, and you didn't help translate the dead sea scrolls. I agree with my wife, you're a liar


JoelMcLendon 2 years ago

Christopher it is Deborah who wrote in Hebrew for Hanavee to translate,


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Fair comment Joel. I'll have to scrape the egg of my face now. Apologies to Deborah.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Atah Medaber Ivrit? tamshikh, bevakasha ktov et ze


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

I am not in favor of what is written in here but I think that we need to be careful when we have give and take with one another through this posts that we do not do it based on our own prejudices or presuppositions. I also thought momentarily that Deborah was against gay. Since I am not in favor of that lifestyle, because I do not think that people are born that way not is it a God-given right for people to live like that, much less that the Bible provides any kind of support for that lifestyle, I was going to write a comment just to support what I thought Deborah had written in favor of. But before that I decided to check any hubs she herself might have written. In there I found one that supports the homosexual lifestyle based on the idea that they have some genes that makes them that way (I hope I read it correctly: I only did it once and rapidly).

I do not agree with what she wrote in there; but that is not a matter for this post. I do agree wholeheartedly with her biblical interpretations from not only grammatical grounds, but from historico and literary grounds. She has a lot of knowledge of Hebrew culture as well as of their sacred scriptures and not to treat that with respect is not intelligent. I am not Hebrew nor Jewish but I do believe that we have to listen to each other more. Even if we end up disagreeing there is no need to disrespect one another.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah, I will comment on your little missive about the blessings of "preserving shabbat" when you have returned the favor and commented on all of the Hebrew and Koine Greek that I have already posted. You glibly ignore all of the points I made about Jonathan and David with full translations from the Paleo-Hebrew, (not one scholarly comment from you regarding those Hebrew inclusions), yet now you think that you are going to be my Hebrew professor and test my knowledge. Please...and tell hubby that you picked the fight, so he can go back to his play toys.

Ben-Hinnom was the valley in which King Solomon built the largest known temple to Molech ever constructed. In Koine Greek, it is rendered Gehenna, and is often mistranslated as hell. It later became the garbage dump where all human refuse was burned and where outcasts and lepers were exiled. But, if you do not know that this is where the great sacrifices to Molech were committed, you really need to study more. The reason it was turned into a dump was quite simple. When the temples of enemies were to be destroyed, you didn't just tear down the walls. You desecrated them. One of the methods of desecration was to humiliate the priests, urinate and defecate on their sacred texts, use their sacred vessels for private banquets, and anything that the conquerors could think of that was shocking for that culture. Thus, the great splendor to Molech that was erected by Solomon was destroyed by his descendants. When the temple of Jerusalem was desecrated by Roman rulers, one of their methods was to erect images of themselves and have them placed inside of the temple to be worshiped as equal to the god of the Jews.

You really should read more about the history of the Valley of Ben-Hinnom and the great amount of child sacrifices that were held there. They would heat the bull-headed statue of Molech until the head would glow red. While the people danced and chanted along with the loud instruments, the priests would then open the jaws of Molech, and the children would be hurled into the jaws to be devoured in the flames. Archaeology and ancient documents, including the Bible, document all of this, and I have printed the material here for you to read. Shamefully, you have ignored it, and instead, have issued childish taunts about my proving my knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek. My knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek has been on full display in every one of those posts. I am the translator who wrote those articles.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

One more point on this Hebrew "one-upmanship" of yours, I never said that I "speak" Hebrew. I said that I studied Paleo-Hebrew and Koine Greek so that I could properly translate ancient Hebrew texts relevant to the Bible, likewise the New Testament and its original languages. Further, the Hebrew you speak today is vastly different from the Hebrew that was used by the Israelites before, during and after the Babylonian Captivity. Working with these ancient documents requires transliterating alphabets back to thousands of years ago just so that we can even begin to make sense of what they are saying. Massoretic points did not come until centuries later, and add to that the fact that we are dealing with fragments until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library, the syntax and cultural meanings of many writings requires more than just speaking Hebrew. In one of my Greek classes at the university, to show how languages evolve, two of my classmates were a husband and wife from Greece, and even they could not get an A in that class. Sometime, go look at the Dead Sea Scrolls in person (I have),and you will see what a task it is to translate Paleo-Hebrew. And don't think for a minute that books showing the Dead Sea Scrolls are accurate. They are copies that have been lightened extensively and enlarged so that you can even begin to make out the words. The originals are nearly black and so small as to need magnifying glasses. And if you read modern Hebrew, then you will notice immediately that you cannot read these scrolls, not without proper training.

You wrote:

"Regardless of what someone says, you will interpret it as anti gay."

No, and apparently others thought you were anti-gay by what you wrote. Look at the post by anti-gay-Pedro who was cheering you on. You might want to, therefore, go back and re-read some of your posts, because that is how they came off. If you are not anti-gay, then my apologies.

You also wrote"

"Obviously you are anti God, because you’re reading something dirty into something pure."

Sweetheart, I am most definitely NOT anti-God. For you to make a false assumption about someone like that is certainly not rabbinical. But, there is nothing"dirty" about sex between two people who love each other, and if you would take the time to read a genuine treatment of sexual history, you would find that sex between men was common through all of the times covered by the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. In fact, until the writing of "Tristan and Isolde," stories were always told of men going off on journeys with other men, not men going off on journeys with women. Men had wives, but for what they considered "real" conversation and deep passionate relationships, they had other men. Women were for pleasure, raising male heirs and keeping the household in order. When you study history, male chauvinism was disgustingly all-pervading, and it has only been in recent history that women have begun to gain a footing in equal rights, and even that is not universal. Go back and read my posts and take a long look at the Hebrew and other evidences I have cited. I didn't invent them. Jonathan and David were able to have each other in their time and cultural ethic, in spite of what modern bigots cannot stand to think. And it was not considered being bi-sexual, since that term was not invented until the late Nineteenth Century. Sexuality was a fluid construct for thousands of years. It all began to change with the Nicenes under Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century, and an entire chapter is devoted to this discussion in the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." Read it. You'll be glad you did.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Regarding the proper translation of Leviticus, I recommend the following:

1.) Historical Research—Go back to the time in which it was written and ask, “What was happening in that time that made the writer put these words to print?”

2.) Cultural Research—Study the culture of the people who wrote this portion of the Bible to see how their culture was different from our culture today.

3.) Linguistic Research—Go back to the original language in which that portion of scripture was written and see what the words meant when they were written.

4.) Anthropological Research—Study the origins, the development, the beliefs and customs of the people who wrote these passages.

A point I should interject here, if the version of the Bible that you use has the word “homosexual” anywhere in it, use it with caution! The word homosexual was not invented until 1869, when the Hungarian physician, Karoly Maria Benkert, created terms for the many variations in sexual orientation. For a person to substitute the word homosexual for any word in the original languages of the Bible is not only scientifically ignorant, it is sinful and bigoted at the very least, for not only was the word not yet invented when the Bible was written, it did not exist in any of the original languages. In the days when Leviticus was written, sex was sex, mores were very fluid, and no matter what kind you were prone to, there was no label for it other than “sex.” Knowing this, one has to ask, then, why the word homosexual appears in some English translations, and you will begin to see that those in charge of that particular translation intentionally inserted their prejudices to color and affect their work, thus making their work unscholarly and unreliable.

We have to ask these questions: Who were the writers of Leviticus? To whom were they speaking? Why did they say these things? What was happening historically that brought them to this point? What was their authority to write these things? Were their writings meant for the entire world, or just for their people?


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee You said Quote " I will comment on your little missive about the blessings of "preserving shabbat"" End Quote

My Reply

LOL Hahahaha............I said nothing about preserving Shabbat..GUESS again.

I knew if I said something that contained the word Shabbat, it would cause you to guess something like that.

Gee only the shapes of Hebrew letters have changed. The Hebrews say God gave them the language, so they don't change it. So don't use this as an excuse :)

The Hebrew Alphabet has had the shapes changed three times, but it's sounds, and places has remained the same

Here http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/28_chart.html


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

OK Hanavee, I can see why you said preserving the Shabbat. I said "Keep" so okay.

But I said nothing about the blessings of keeping Shabbat, or any kind of blessing

Please continue, what did I say?


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

As I said

"David’s wife was Michal, who was Saul’s daughter

and the sister of Jonathan. It is not likely just for this reason,

that David and Jonathan would have been lovers"

In Hebrew having sexual relationships with relatives by marriage is incest

Including man with man.

The Hebrew Bible even forbids a man from marrying his brother's widow with the exception that, if his brother died childless, the man is instead required to marry his brother's widow so as to "raise up seed to him" (per Deuteronomy 25:5–6).

God said David was a man “after my own heart” 1 Sam. 13:14

But you see David, who your Jesus was supposed to have descended from, as being a regular sinful, and lustful person, committing all kinds of sins.

Is this so it will justify your beliefs that as long as you believe in Jesus, you don’t have to keep God’s commandments?

Or do you see God as having a sinful, and lustful heart?


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I know how to study scripture. We Jewish call it pardes

The four levels of interpretation of the Scriptures, called the pardes are

P'shat (literal meaning based on historical intent of author)

Remez (hint, allusion, analogy, allegory)

D'rash (application, exposition)

Sod (looking for the mystery, "deep" meaning)

I doubt you could teach me anything


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

דבורה, אני חושב שאתה יהיר מאוד, במיוחד עבור מי שאמור להיות מנהיג רוחני. אני אתרגם שני משפטים המטופשים שלך כשאתה פונה אל ההערות כבר פורסמו על יהונתן ודוד. המשחקים הילדותיים שלך הם משעממים.

Are you still going to keep playing silly games, or are you going to comment on the points I made regarding Jonathan and David, because you have yet to refute any of my findings, especially since you supposedly are such a Hebrew scholar. I posted a number of scholarly findings, none of which you have referred to. I am still waiting, and as I said just above this English post, you will get your answer when I get mine. You have not taken a single note of any of my posts regarding Jonathan and David, translations taken from the original texts, and you resort instead to childish games to misdirect everyone away from your lack of answers to rebut what I wrote.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Regarding David, Deborah wrote:

"He wasn't gay or bisexual. Obviously you are very unfamiliar with the true love of God. Didn't He tell us to love our neighbor as ourselves?

That's all they were doing, loving one another."

You cannot stand the idea of two men loving one another in "that" way. It's a shame that you don't understand what "that" way is, but two men can love each other, two women can love each other, and they can love each other just as fully as a man and a woman can.

You quoted some source for this statement, which I find ludicrous:

"And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him,.... As a token of his hearty love and true friendship, and that David might appear at court not in the habit of a shepherd, but in that of a prince:"

Bull hockey! Jonathan, as a wealthy and powerful prince would have ordered garments brought up for David, if it was just a matter of wanting to make sure that David didn't appear in the royal court looking like a shepherd. What a totally unfounded, unscholarly and false statement! You need to trash that source. Cultural anthropologists would die of laughter at this statement.

You failed to address this passage:

Jonathan did not ask David to swear by this “marriage” (covenant) once, but twice (“And Jonathan caused David to swear again...”) because “...he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.”

And I especially am still waiting for you to show your scholarly skills for this portion that I posted:

“Until David exceeded,” these words cause a lot of supposed scholars a certain amount of unrest, because the literal meaning of this part of the sentence is that David got an erection. Whether or not he ejaculated is uncertain, because we are missing words here that would have completed the sentence and given us the complete picture. Apparently the scribe who transcribed the manuscript that survived felt it necessary to leave out those words, or he accidentally left them out and never caught his error, but many experts feel that certain words were, indeed, omitted that would have completed the thought. However it happened, we may never know. But, we do have the words “ad David higdil,” which translates “until David enlarged.” David and Jonathan knew that this was probably going to be the last time they would ever see each other, and while David, ever the politically correct man, bowed three times to show his respect for the high royal status of Jonathan, it was only moments before they were in each other’s arms. I most definitely don’t think that they kissed without embracing. David said that Jonathan’s love surpassed that of women. Therefore, it is impossible for me to see these two not being in each other’s arms as they enjoyed what they both felt would be the last time together. And, when people are in love, and they know they only get one more time together, given the opportunity, they go for it. They kissed, and they wept, and they enjoyed each other for an undetermined length of time, but, in the end of it, David “exceeded.” The key word here is actually “ad,” “until.” For those who like to translate that this phrase to mean that David wept longer than Jonathan, such an attempt is just pure nonsense. David was the alpha male in this relationship, and Jonathan was more the emotional, heartfelt pursuer in his role. If this was a matter of who wept the longest, then the vote would have gone to Jonathan. But the word “until” tells us that the kissing, and embracing, and weeping, and being close to each other one last time, all of this emotion and mutual enjoyment of the moment went on “until” something happened, that something being the climax of it all, and that was that David “got an erection and ejaculated.” The only word there is the word in Hebrew meaning “to make large,” or “to grow large.” I think that David enjoyed Jonathan “until” he was fulfilled sexually. Higdil is the Hiphil Causative of גדל gadal,” meaning “he caused to become large.” The best parallel for the correct translation of gadal here is to look at Ezekiel 16:26:

“Thou hast committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbors, great of flesh (gidley basar)...”גִּדְלֵי בָשָׂר

The English words “great of flesh” actually are the translators’ attempt to use a euphemism rather than say what it literally does in the Hebrew, and that is, “well hung.” “Gidley basar” is literally “enlarged penis,” or, “big of penis.” “Gidley” is a form of “gadal.” I have to chuckle when I read the sanitized version that is found in some Bibles, “...with your neighbors, the lustful Egyptians...” The NJB translation gets it right with the words “...your big-membered neighbors...” Now some people think that the writers of the Old Testament had the same prudishness about matters of a sexual nature as we do today, and that would be incorrect. True, there were words that bothered them, just as there are words that bother some people of religious backgrounds today, but the words that bothered them are not the words that bother us. For example, Staying with Ezekiel, let’s look at Ezekiel 23:20:

“For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and who issue is like the issue of horses.”

The words “flesh of asses” is literally the “penis (basar) of donkeys,” and the “issue of horses” is literally the “semen of the ejaculation of horses.” Ezekiel says that Israel lusted after Egyptians whose male sex organs were like those of donkeys and whose ejaculations were like those of stallions. (Note once again, we see the double insult, calling Israel not only a woman, but a whore as well. No man in Israel thought of his nation as anything but masculine, all male.) So, if Ezekiel had no problem with these seemingly lewd words, it is apparent that they weren’t among the words that had to be modified in his day, words like “temple prostitutes.” Still, why we only have the unfinished phrase, “until David enlarged,” is a problem argued even today by theologians on both sides of the fence.

Nonetheless, “higdil” means that the passage is speaking of David’s penis and the fact that he got an erection from the excitement of their embracing. Men loving men was not considered abnormal in this time and place.

Have at it, Deborah. I am waiting for your erudite explanation.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote:

"In Hebrew having sexual relationships with relatives by marriage is incest."

Hmm? Genesis 19:36 "So both of Lot's daughter's became pregnant by their father."

Lot was SO righteous that the angels saved him from the destruction of Sodom. Hmmm?

Let's look at some more contradictions:

Leviticus is a book that, by its own creation, is to be used as a mechanism of control over a people who would now be bound by those who wrote these laws. And some of these laws were immediately self-contradictory. The greatest contradiction comes when we look very closely at Leviticus 18:12—

“Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.”

This means that you cannot have sex with your father’s sister. This is considered “wickedness” according to Leviticus, yet let’s look at the family skeletons of the very man to whom the writers of Leviticus attribute authorship, Moses, himself. Go to Exodus 6:20.

“And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses.”

Okay, Deborah, want to explain that one for us?

How about this?

Moses, his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam, were born of a union that was forbidden by the writers of Leviticus. Since he was born of an unlawful union, Moses would have been forbidden to even enter the temple under these new laws. In fact, they forgot that even their patriarch, King David, was the grandson of the famous Ruth, of whom the Book of Ruth is written, and she was a Moabite, which would have kept King David out of the temple, as well.

One more:

In Genesis 38:15, Judah, from whom the tribe of Judah is descended, sees what he thinks is a common prostitute sitting along the roadside. It is actually his daughter-in-law, Tamar, in disguise...and he has sex with her.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

If you think that the Israelites would never think of sacrificing humans, you would be very wrong . . . because they did!

II Samuel 21:1-9 “Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)

Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?

And the Gibeonites said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his house; neither for us shalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said, What ye shall say, that will I do for you.

And they answered the king, The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel,

Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, whom the LORD did choose. And the king said, I will give them.

But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.

But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest."

Another reference to the acceptance of human, or child, sacrifice comes from the prophet Micah:

Micah 6:6-7 “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? . . . Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

Still another from Isaiah:

Isaiah 57:5 “Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the cliffs of the rocks?” Green trees represented the groves of Asherah, the consort of El, or Ba’al.

I think one more biblical example will suffice to make this point abundantly clear scripturally. We turn now to the story of Jepthah:

Judges 11:30-31 “And Jepthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

Then it shall be that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace for the children of the Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

Thus, we read in verse 34 that his daughter was the first to greet him, and in verse 39 she was sacrificed as a burnt offering.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote:

"The Hebrew Alphabet has had the shapes changed three times, but it's sounds, and places has remained the same."

For starters, the etymology of the Hebrew language shows otherwise. For example, let's look at the periods of distinctive changes noted thusly:

The Proto-Canaanite Texts

Old Palestinian (17th–12th century B.C.E.)

Proto-Sinaitic (15th century B.C.E.)

Canaanite Cuneiform Texts

Ugaritic (14th–13th century B.C.E.)

Palestinian (13th–12th century B.C.E.)

The Proto-Canaanite alphabet borrows pictographic signs from Egyptian hieroglyphs. Canaanite communities adapted the method of writing used in Akkadian cuneiform syllabic script from the new alphabetic system. Akkadian cuneiform was used in the latter half of the second millennium for international correspondence even between the Egyptian pharaoh and his vassals in Palestine, found at three sites in Palestine (Beth-Shemesh, Taanach, and Naḥal Tabor). The cuneiform alphabet ceased to exist at the beginning of the 12th century B.C.E. , but the Proto-Canaanite script was the source of all alphabetic scripts which later spread throughout the entire world. The main offshoot of the Proto-Canaanite script was the Phoenician, from which Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the Greek alphabets evolved.

Proto-Canaanite inscriptions were written either in vertical columns, in horizontal lines or, quite frequently, in boustrophedon. In the 11th century B.C.E., the Proto-Canaanite developed into the Phoenician script. On the Ahiram sarcophagus at Byblos, an inscription dated to circa 1000 B.C.E. demonstrates this stage of evolution.

The Hebrews adopted the alphabetic script from the Canaanites in the 12th or 11th century B.C.E. They followed the current Phoenician script until the ninth century, when they began to develop their own national script.

The Gezer Calendar (950-918 B.C.E.), which can be seen in the Louvre in Paris, is considered to be the earliest Hebrew inscription known.

The earliest clear Hebrew features are found in the scripts of the ninth-century Moabite inscriptions, namely the stele of Mesha.

The evolution of the independent Hebrew script is one of a specific cursive character: the further it diverges from the mother script, Phoenician, the more it drops the lapidary features. This one-trend development is obvious in the eighth-century Siloam Inscription.

We owe a great deal to our etymological study due to the Seventh-Century palimpsest papyrus, preserved in the dry climate of Wadi Murabbaʿat near the Dead Sea where about 20 clay sealings of papyrus rolls were found.

From the fifth century onward, when the Aramaic language and script became an official means of communication, the Paleo-Hebrew script, the ancient Hebrew characters as used in the time of the Second Temple, was used for writing Hebrew both in Judah and Samaria. It was preserved mainly as a biblical book hand by a coterie of erudite scribes, presumably of the Zadokite priesthood. The majority of Hasmonean coinage, as well as the coins of the First and Second Jewish Revolts, bears Paleo-Hebrew legends.

In Wadi Daliʾyeh, Aramaic deeds were discovered that were written on papyrus in Samaria in the fourth century B.C.E. Two clay sealings with Hebrew texts written in the Paleo-Hebrew script were also found there, and they bore no Samaritan peculiarities. The divergence of the Samaritan script began sometime in the last two centuries of the first millennium B.C.E. The Samaritans continued to use this script for writing both Hebrew and Aramaic texts, but the Jews ceased using it after 135 C.E.

Aramaic, being an official language of the Assyrian, neo-Babylonian, and Persian empires, was spoken and written in a vast area. Aramaic inscriptions have been found in Egypt, North Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The examination of all this epigraphic material has shown that until the end of the third century B.C.E. (i.e., about 100 years after the fall of the Persian Empire) no local script developed and the Official Aramaic script remained a uniform script.

Many nations used Aramaic as a second language, and often it became the main spoken tongue. This was the situation in the fifth-century B.C.E. Jewish military colony in Elephantine, where over 100 Aramaic papyri and ostraca were found. In the Persian period there existed an Aramaic lapidary script (cf. the fourth-century Judean jar-stamps), but the influence of the cursive hand was so strong that many inscriptions on hard material were written in the cursive style. The lapidary script died out in the late fourth century B.C.E., but the use of the standard Aramaic cursive went on for at least 100 years after the fall of the Persian Empire (330 B.C.E.). Aramaic was widely spoken and written and continued to flourish in various centers even in the Hellenistic period, when Greek became the official language.

In the third and second centuries B.C.E. local scripts began to develop from the Aramaic. In the West two national scripts were born, the Jewish (square Hebrew) and the Nabatean, while the eastern offshoots are many: Palmyrene, Syriac, Mandaic, as well as the local scripts of Hatra (Mesopotamia), Nisa (Turkmenistan), Armazi (Georgia), and Elymais (Khuzistan). The Jewish book hand became stabilized in the Herodian period. From the Nabatean cursive hand the North Arabic script developed. This writing also employed a system of Aramaic ideograms. The script of the inscriptions and a coin-legend of the Elymeans is the ancestor of the Mandaic writing. The Mandeans are a religious sect living in Khuzistan near the Persian Gulf who preserved an eastern Aramaic dialect resembling that of the Babylonian Talmud.

The earliest Syriac inscriptions stem from the first and second centuries C.E. This script was employed by Christians in Syria-Mesopotamia. There are three main Syriac styles of writing: the Estrangelo, which resembles the script of the early inscriptions, is formal; the Serto, ordinarily used by the Jacobites, is a developed cursive; the Nestorian hand is another cursive variation. Syriac is an Eastern Aramaic dialect spoken by the Christian communities in Edessa (modern Urfa) and its vicinity. However, although the Palestinian Christians spoke in a Western Aramaic dialect, they adopted the Syriac script and wrote in a style similar to Estrangelo. The Manichaic script is an offshoot of Syriac; it was invented in the third century C.E. by Mani, the founder of the Manichean sect, as a book hand for writing religious manuscripts in a Middle Iranian dialect.

Aramaic arrived in Judea through the Babylonian and mainly through the Persian administrations. It became the colloquial language, at first of the educated classes and then of wider circles. In the Persian period the Aramaic script was used for writing Aramaic texts only, but the earliest Hebrew manuscripts found in Qumran are fragments of Exodus and Samuel, probably written in the second half of the third century B.C.E. in the Proto-Jewish script, which displays the earliest Jewish national development of the Official Aramaic script. From this period on the Paleo-Hebrew script was restricted to Hebrew texts, but the Jewish script was used both for Hebrew and Aramaic. The Samaritan script – a descendant of Paleo-Hebrew – was employed both for Hebrew and the Western Aramaic dialect spoken by the Samaritans.

The earliest Jewish cursive began to develop in the Late Hasmonean and Early Herodian periods and flourished in the time of the Second Revolt (132–135 C.E.). There was not sufficient time for the development of a fully ligatured writing such as Syriac, Mandaic, and North Arabic. The influence of this hand was strong enough to affect the formal hand. Therefore, some biblical manuscripts and mainly legal documents were written in semiformal or semicursive styles. The cursive style ceased to exist with Bar Kokhba's defeat or soon after it, while from the surviving Jewish book hand other cursive offshoots have been born.

A VERY brief excursion through MORE than just three changes in Hebrew.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote "דבורה, אני חושב שאתה יהיר מאוד, במיוחד עבור מי שאמור להיות מנהיג רוחני. אני אתרגם שני משפטים המטופשים שלך כשאתה פונה אל ההערות כבר פורסמו על יהונתן ודוד. המשחקים הילדותיים שלך הם משעממים." End Quote

You said

"Deborah, I think you are very arrogant, especially for someone who is supposed to be a spiritual leader. I will translate your stupid two sentences when you address the comments already posted about Jonathan and David. Your childish games are boring"

I don’t care what you think. I am not arrogant, I am taking up for God and scripture, because you are spreading lies about it.

My two sentences are not stupid.

I disagree with your comments about Jonathan and David, period, so I am not addressing them, except to say you are wrong.

What childish games?

You say you'll translate my two sentences when I address what you wrote. That's an excuse. You don't know what I said. Admit it


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote “"In Hebrew having sexual relationships with relatives by marriage is incest."

Hmm? Genesis 19:36 "So both of Lot's daughter's became pregnant by their father."

Lot was SO righteous that the angels saved him from the destruction of Sodom. Hmmm?” End Quote

My Reply

In Genesis 19 After the destruction of Sodom. Two of Lot’s daughters were speaking to one another, and the firstborn said unto the younger our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth

They thought the whole world was destroyed by fire, as it had been by a flood; they understood it would be no more consumed by water, but they had been told it would be by fire, and they imagined the time was now come, and this was the case; that not only Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire, and that by this time the fire had reached to Zoar, and had consumed that, but that the whole earth was destroyed, and not a man left but their father, and therefore thought it could be excusable in them, and lawful for them to take the following method to repopulate the world; or else they supposed there were none in the land, the land of Canaan, not of any of their kindred and relations, for they might be ignorant of Abraham and his family, or however of any good man that they knew of, that they could be joined to in marriage


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote ”Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.”

This means that you cannot have sex with your father’s sister. This is considered “wickedness” according to Leviticus, yet let’s look at the family skeletons of the very man to whom the writers of Leviticus attribute authorship, Moses, himself. Go to Exodus 6:20.

“And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses.” End Quote

My Reply

The Levitical Laws were given to a grown man, known as Moses

Leviticus 1:1

“And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying”

Exodus 6 occurred before those laws.

When Amram took Jochebed, Moses wasn’t even born, and the Laws not yet given. as you said "she bare him Aaron and Moses"

They did not know it would be viewed as wrong

Man you couldn't see that?


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote “In Genesis 38:15, Judah, from whom the tribe of Judah is descended, sees what he thinks is a common prostitute sitting along the roadside. It is actually his daughter-in-law, Tamar, in disguise...and he has sex with her.” End Quote

My Reply

You must read all that is written and not take it out of context

Tamar had been intended for Judah from the outset and she was a virgin when he engaged in relations with her. Their encounter on the way to Timnah was significant and decisive in the annals of the Israelite nation. Divine intervention was active throughout the entire incident: the hand of God directed Judah to the tent, and it revealed the pledge and thereby saved Tamar and her unborn children from the stake. Thus Perez and Zerah came into the world, King David was descended from Perez, and the Jewish Messiah eventually will be born from this line.

According to the Bible, Tamar was most likely a Canaanite. The midrash is relatively silent on her life before she married into the family of Judah

Judah judged her according to the laws pertaining to the daughter of a priest (which are set forth in Lev. 21:9) and ordered that she be burnt when he thought that she had become pregnant as a result of an illicit tryst

The Torah declares that Er was “displeasing to the Lord” when he married Tamar, and was accordingly put to death (Gen. 38:7), while his brother Onan died because he did not want to do his duty as a brother-in-law, and rather spilled his seed on the ground

The Rabbis find Judah’s conduct praiseworthy: even though the Torah had not yet been given, he nonetheless took care to observe all the commandments

The Torah says that when Tamar realized that she would not be given to Shelah, she planned how she would become pregnant by Judah and “sat down at the entrance to Enaim

The midrash tells that Tamar cast her eyes to the portal to which all eyes are cast (i.e., she cried out for help), that is, God, and said: “May it be Your will that I not leave this house empty”. Tamar’s prayer to God reveals her true aim, which, according to the Rabbis, was to cleave to the house of Judah and provide a successor for his line.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote “If you think that the Israelites would never think of sacrificing humans, you would be very wrong . . . because they did!

II Samuel 21:1-9” End Quote

My Reply

Gibeonite is someone from Gibeon

Gibeon was a Canaanite city north of Jerusalem that was conquered by Joshua

The Gibeonites were not of the sons of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites

The Israelites did not sacrifice their children, or make them pass through fire, and they did not worship Molech

This occurred because of what Saul did.

A one time occurance

1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David sought the presence of the LORD. And the LORD said, “It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them (now the Gibeonites were not of the sons of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites, and the sons of Israel made a covenant with them, but Saul had sought to kill them in his zeal for the sons of Israel and Judah). 3 Thus David said to the Gibeonites, “What should I do for you? And how can I make atonement that you may bless the inheritance of the LORD?” 4 Then the Gibeonites said to him, “We have no concern of silver or gold with Saul or his house, nor is it for us to put any man to death in Israel.” And he said, “I will do for you whatever you say.” 5 So they said to the king, “The man who consumed us and who planned to exterminate us from remaining within any border of Israel, 6 let seven men from his sons be given to us, and we will hang them before the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD.” And the king said, “I will give them.” 7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, between David and Saul's son Jonathan. 8 So the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, Armoni and Mephibosheth whom she had born to Saul, and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she had born to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 Then he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before the LORD, so that the seven of them fell together; and they were put to death in the first days of harvest at the beginning of barley harvest.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Now, it’s time for you to tell me what I said

Ki eshm'rah Shabbat El yishm'reni. Ot hi l'olmey ad beyno uveyni

Atah Medaber Ivrit? tamshikh, bevakasha ktov et ze


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I have proven everything I have said, and I've done it repeatedly.

You just can't admit it.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

In the verses you quoted, God’s people are not making sacrifices.

The Gibeonites told David that since Saul destroyed some of them and purposed to kill them all, they would find justice served if but seven of Saul's “sons” were handed over to them for execution. (Saul's sons were involved in the plot, this is why David killed Saul's sons) They would hang these sons “before the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD” (verse 6). Hanging was the punishment used for very serious crimes (see Genesis 40:19; Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Joshua 8:29; 10:26). The Gideonites promised they would hang Saul's sons “before the LORD.” It seems to me that they were viewing this matter as they should, seeing that they were carrying out God's will in a way that satisfied (propitiated) Him, and thus satisfied them as well. They would carry out the execution before the city of Saul, before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

The Story Is About The Importance Of Keeping Covenants Per The Rebbes

And so seven of Saul's “sons” are selected. Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, is spared because of David's covenant with Jonathan. The two sons of Rizpah,97 Saul's concubine, are executed, along with the five sons of Saul's daughter, Merab.98 The Gibeonites took these seven men and “hanged them in the mountain before the LORD” (verse 9). The execution took place at the beginning of the barley harvest.

David's dealings with the Gibeonites, at its roots, is a matter of keeping covenants. Israel had made a covenant with the Gibeonites. Even though this covenant was 400 years old, it was still to be honored. Saul broke that covenant by trying to rid the land of them. No matter how good his intentions might have been, the covenant must be kept. The breaking of that covenant had serious consequences. It cost Saul and his sons their lives. It brought a famine on the land of Israel. There were other covenants involved as well. Much of what is described in our text looks like the fulfillment of God's warnings for breaking the Mosaic Covenant in Deuteronomy 28-30. In addition, David's covenant with Jonathan had to be honored, so Mephibosheth was not handed over to the Gibeonites.

God deals with men in terms of covenants. Time does not weaken these covenants. Covenants are to be kept. Even when men do not take their covenants seriously, God does. He expects us to keep our covenants:


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee you believe in the New Testament, and you helped translate the dead sea scrolls? :)

There are 194 contradictions in the New Testament which I have listed in the comments section of my hub

http://deborah-sexton.hubpages.com/hub/WhyYouShoul...


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said in Hebrew, Quote

"Deborah, I think you are very arrogant, especially for someone who is supposed to be a spiritual leader. I will translate your stupid two sentences when you address the comments already posted about Jonathan and David. Your childish games are boring"

End Quote

You sort of tried to translate what I said when you wrote this: Quote " I will comment on your little missive about the blessings of "preserving shabbat"" End Quote

And you were wrong about that. I said nothing about the blessings of Shabbat.

You said Quote “For starters, the etymology of the Hebrew language shows otherwise. For example, let's look at the periods of distinctive changes noted thusly:” End Quote

The meanings of the Hebrew words have not changed throughout history, and each letter changed shapes only three times

1. Early

2. Middle

3. Late

For example the early Bet was a tent, then it changed twice more in shape but always did, and still does mean: in, tent, house, and has the sound of B

see the chart (which is correct)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/28_chart.html

All the stuff you listed means nothing, it is all extraneous


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Okay, that was a very lame attempt at addressing the questions I posed for you regarding Jonathan and David, so, using that same lameness, I will give you the PGPV (Pagan Gentile Parenthetical Version) translation of what you wrote. Words in parentheses are to make better understanding of how the translated lines SHOULD read.

"If (I, Deborah) keep (preserve the true meaning of) the Sabbath (for more than just the one day a week that I currently observe its spiritual applications), God will keep me (from being an arrogant ass). (And if I start acting like a spiritual person instead of a religious person, and love my neighbor as I love myself) It is a sign forever between God and me (that living His tenets actually has benefits.). :-)


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

I did much of my work in ancient Hebrew, especially Paleo-Hebrew, and to understand some of the difficulties that I am trying to get you to grasp, let's first look at the variations that one has to consider when doing proper translation of ancient texts.

There are the problems with the Masoretic Texts, which only date back to the 10th century. These texts differ from the original manuscripts in many ways. We must remember that the Masoretes were not just ordinary book translators, but were scribes and Torah scholars who worked in the Middle-East between the 7th and 11th centuries. Nonetheless, they admitted to problems they encountered with texts that they received. Thus, when they edited the manuscripts, modern Jewish texts would then demonstrate a marked departure from the original Hebrew Scriptures.

Here's how the Massoretes differed:

The Masoretes said that they received corrupted texts.

Masoretic Text is written with a radically different alphabet than the original.

The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.

The Masoretic Text excluded several books from the Old Testament scriptures.

The Masoretic Text includes changes to prophecy and doctrine.

Going further back than the Massoretic Texts, one then begins to encounter corruptions from scribal errors, dialectal differences, and more. Sometimes, scribes would show their linguistic and cultural differences in a transmission. For example, why is the word in the story of Jonathan and David left out? We all know that the scribes felt that corrections could never be done within the text, only in the margins, but where is the missing word?

Now, we should also note that the Masoretic Text is written with an alphabet that was borrowed from Assyria around the 6th-7th Century B.C., and is almost 1000 years newer than the form of writing used by Moses, David, and most of the Old Testament authors. Moses would not be able to read the Massoretic Texts, so if Hebrew never changes, what explains this historical fact?

Now, when I say that Hebrew has changed over the centuries, it has, but once it became a standardized language indigenous to only the Jews of Israel, it became fairly unchanged since then. But, my point was the ancient texts that are to be studied go back to times before Hebrew became monolithic, and for that, one has to study the historical and cultural aspects. If I read, for example, ancient carvings on pottery found near a temple of Ashteroth in the time of David, the inscriptions are certainly NOT going to be readable to a modern Jewish person. This is what I meant when I said that Hebrew has changed and evolved over the centuries, and I do not study modern Hebrew to see what words are different, but I know when I recite a line of Koine Greek to a modern Greek person, they find it strange, like speaking Latin to an Italian. I would have to say in all my studies that no language surpasses Hebrew for maintaining the purity of its official language (Yiddish notwithstanding).


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

"Hanavee you believe in the New Testament, and you helped translate the dead sea scrolls? :)

There are 194 contradictions in the New Testament which I have listed in the comments section of my hub..."

First of all, I can show you contradictions in both the Old Testament AND the New Testament, and we should all know, if we are scholars, why these occur (if you need me to explain, I will elucidate). The contradictions are there to cause us to question, as we always should. Truth can always stand scrutiny, only falsehood fails the test. But,I always say this - "If your religious views contradict God's reality, then you need to revisit your religious views. God makes NO mistakes, He created NO zeroes, ALL of His children have worth and value. Woe be to the human who stands in judgment of what God hath made!"

And to answer your question of why I studied the Old Testament in Hebrew, quite simple - the entire collection of books used to make up the Bible, and then some (there are more books that were excluded), they must all be studied, since God allowed humans to search for Him and write their thoughts about those searches and their findings. These writings are worth studying, but our search should not end there. We can speak directly to God and get answers, as well.

If it had not been for the split (during the reign of Nero) between the Jews and the Gentile converts to the teachings of Jesus (a Jew), there would possibly NOT be a religion called Christianity today. Study the writings of Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee of Pharisees). You must remember that Jesus was a Jew who taught a Messianic hope. For whatever He demonstrated to those who saw Him, His disciples in particular, they were so moved and convinced of His deity that they chose death rather than betray Him. All but one of His twelve disciples died horrible deaths rather than recant their faith that Jesus was divine. What did they know that we do not? Thus, the story begins with "Bereishit bara Elohim..." and continues right on into the life of Jesus Christ. You cannot study the full story without studying both Hebrew and Koine Greek (maybe a little Aramaic). When I was in the university, I was appalled at all of these people studying for the ministry, and not one of them studied anything other than Koine Greek. I was the person who, with a lot of work, convinced the university to begin offering Hebrew, and I was enrolled in its very first class.

And as to why I wanted to study the Dead Sea Scrolls, heck, they were the best thing to come our way since Moses came down off the mountain. I felt as if here was a chance to read uncorrupted texts, and thus, I had to learn to transliterate and do comparative analyses of cultural influences, just for starters. Seeing the scrolls in person was a shock, but if you truly are seeking God, then you study... and I still do.

By the way, I think you and your husband may well have mistranslated what I said. I said that I worked on translating the Dead Sea Scrolls, but for a private enterprise. I most certainly was not part of that erudite group of scholars in Jerusalem who did such phenomenal work. Good Lord, I could only wish to be so blessed. Those people have forgotten more than I will ever know.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

"In the verses you quoted, God’s people are not making sacrifices."

Israelites called themselves God's children. I have posted this before, so let's let the Israelite holy man, the prophet Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord, say it:

Jeremiah 7:30-32 “‘The people of Judah have done evil in my sight,’ said the Lord . . . ‘They built the high place of Topheth, which is in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in fire. Such a thing I never commanded, nor had in mind’”

The Israelites were following years of tradition that they had adopted from other cultures - human sacrifice. The Valley of Ben Hinnom, which I have mentioned before, was where Solomon built the largest temple to Molech that was ever built. This valley is called Gehenna in the Koine Greek of the New Testament, and is often misinterpreted as Hell, because of the burning dump to which the temple of Molech was reduced.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote: “There are the problems with the Masoretic Texts, which only date back to the 10th century. ” End Quote

FACT

The Masorete writings go back to the 6th Century, and ended in the 10 Century


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

This hub is about homosexuality and the bible meaning, and I have answered the questions about David and Jonathan. You feel it is okay to ask me the same questions over, and over, and it's not. I have given you factual reasons for my answers. Start reading from my first comment, and you'll find my stand on it

I won't repeat it, or answer again. You can't get answers from me, that agree with you, so stop trying.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

You said Quote: “The Masoretes added vowel points which did not exist in the original.” End Quote

Of course they added vowel points, and even vowels, where there were none, because only one word had vowels, all the rest of the words were made up of consonants. These points aren’t needed by the Jewish person, but it helps the modern teenagers to better understand

The Masorete were Jewish and knew how to interpret their language. They look at the verbs, and nouns, masculine, and feminine, et cetera., to determine what was said, to say, et cetera.

Explaining all your mistakes is tiring me out

I don't believe you took part in the translation of any Hebrew text, much less the Dead Sea scrolls. I can't help that I don't believe you, any more than a gay person can help liking their same sex, or a straight person, the opposite sex. Surely you understand.

There is so much to explain

I’m done here with you Hanavee (not with the hub)


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah,

You contradict yourself so much, you are not even worth responding to anymore. If I had not studied Hebrew and Koine Greek, as I have stated, I would never have been able to make the points that I have made regarding Jonathan and David. I wrote those points, am the original author of all that each of those posts say, and for you to call someone a liar simply because you cannot believe anyone but you can understand the languages of the Bible, shows the greatest ignorance and prejudice, just one reason among many that I would never sit in a congregation headed by your teachings. Those who personally know me know that I indeed DO have the degrees that I refer to, and would find you hilarious in your false accusations. But that does not matter to me, since I know the truth, and you just keep making a greater fool of yourself by making such stupid statements. That's like me saying that I doubt you are Jewish. Big deal. And what does your Jewishness bring to any proofs? That's like saying that because I am an American, I am an automatic expert on the U.S. Constitution. What a totally foolish claim to make! And you have made so many errors, dogmatically at that, all of which fly in the face of reality and academic truth, that it is not worth my time to spend trying to help you. But, when people like you bring in the anti-gay prejudices (intentionally or unintentionally) put forth routinely by those who misinterpret the Bible as their basis for bigotry, I will be there to show people the truth, and that truth is that God made ALL sexual orientations, not just one, and that He loves ALL of His creation. He made no mistakes, and no one is worthless. If, therefore, we all have value in His sight, then it behooves all of us to strive to follow the great commandment of loving our neighbor as we love ourselves ( a commandment I fail at daily, and for which I constantly ask God's forgiveness).


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Since no one can read what I wrote, here it is.

In Hebrew I said:

Ki eshm'rah Shabbat El yishm'reni. Ot hi l'olmey ad beyno uveyni

Which in English says:

"Just as I keep Shabbat, God will keep me. It is a symbol for all eternity between Him and me"

Then in Hebrew I said:

Tamshikh, bevakasha ktov et ze

Which in English says:

"Go on, please write it down"

You might want to record these words for the future


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Interesting Deborah. I'm not really sure what the relevance is to the subject of the hub though.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Chris, it is relevant because Hanavee said he interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls (bible content) (hebrew/aramaic), and you were using the bible as your reference for your hub content

I've helped keep your hub going..it's your turn

So long


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

When Hanavee wrote this in Hebrew

He Said: Quote "דבורה, אני חושב שאתה יהיר מאוד, במיוחד עבור מי שאמור להיות מנהיג רוחני. אני אתרגם שני משפטים המטופשים שלך כשאתה פונה אל ההערות כבר פורסמו על יהונתן ודוד. המשחקים הילדותיים שלך הם משעממים." End Quote

And I translated it precisely, as saying

"Deborah, I think you are very arrogant, especially for someone who is supposed to be a spiritual leader. I will translate your stupid two sentences when you address the comments already posted about Jonathan and David. Your childish games are boring"

What did it have to do with this hub? Why didn't you tell him you didn't feel it was relevant?


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

Deborah you are great don't ever lose your spirit!

(oops and what does this has to do with this hub? gee I dont know, except for, what does 'ooziness' has to do with proving a point?. Also I think her comments has to do with the hub much more than the wild ideas about some homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. Christopheranton you never really answered DMz question to you: are you contending that male gay love or sex is superior to that of a man and a woman? Why? In fact, you actually never clearly answered his points with irrefutable proof. ) one question from my part: dont you think that maybe there is a problem with presenting an argument in favor of something and then the best one can offer as a corroboration of one's alleged findings is [and i am paraphrasing not quoting] "well I don't know, maybe the evidence is not conclusive, nor explicit, nor clear, nor definite, but it certainly OOZES with what I personally wish to see in it."


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I don't say that male on male sexual expression is superior to male on female. They are both of equal value.


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

christopherantong that is also your own personal judgment, not a scientific one. And in terms of logic how can they be of equal value when only heterosexual relationships can produce children yet many homosexual couples want to have children. (and I am not talking in here whether some parents lack love for their children or not. In general good parents want to do everything they can for their children, even sacrificing their own lives for them. )

In other words, homosexuals desire something which their own lifestyle prevents them from having. It seems to me that somehow that indicates that the homosexual relationship is limited and cannot be equal to heterosexual love. This might sound full of prejudice to you, but i am just trying to follow the logic here. You feel free to show me using good solid arguments that I am wrong.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote:

"Since no one can read what I wrote, here it is.

In Hebrew I said:

Ki eshm'rah Shabbat El yishm'reni. Ot hi l'olmey ad beyno uveyni

Which in English says:

"Just as I keep Shabbat, God will keep me. It is a symbol for all eternity between Him and me"

You really are daft. I translated that already for you, or could you not read between the lines that I jokingly inserted?

"If (I, Deborah) keep (preserve the true meaning of) the Sabbath (for more than just the one day a week that I currently observe its spiritual applications), God will keep me (from being an arrogant ass). (And if I start acting like a spiritual person instead of a religious person, and love my neighbor as I love myself) It is a sign forever between God and me (that living His tenets actually has benefits.). :-)

If you remove the parentheses that I told you I was inserting for fun, then you read my translation as:

If (that, because) I keep the Sabbath (Shabbat), God will keep me. It is a sign (symbol ) forever (for all eternity) between God (Him) and me.

Sheesh, it's no fun when you have to explain a joke. You didn't even get the smiley face at the end? :-}


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote:

When Hanavee wrote this in Hebrew

He Said: Quote "דבורה, אני חושב שאתה יהיר מאוד, במיוחד עבור מי שאמור להיות מנהיג רוחני. אני אתרגם שני משפטים המטופשים שלך כשאתה פונה אל ההערות כבר פורסמו על יהונתן ודוד. המשחקים הילדותיים שלך הם משעממים." End Quote

What did it have to do with this hub? Why didn't you tell him you didn't feel it was relevant?

I wasn't the one who translated it into English - you did. I wrote it for your eyes only. You asked for proof that I studied Hebrew, but I never asked for proof that you were Jewish. Why can't you address the academics of a discussion point rather than sidetracking to requiring proofs for a person's education? What are you going to ask for next, birth certificates? Funny how I always contribute to a discussion point made by providing academic fact, yet you always resort to dodging academic presentations by demanding to be shown proofs that are irrelevant to any discussion. What next? Do I list my home address, telephone number, driver's license number and three references, along with the names and addresses of all of my professors at my Alma Mater?

I have indulged these childish games long enough. No discussion with you is academic, and is totally a waste of time.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Pedro wrote:

"...wild ideas about some homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan."

Which shows that you read nothing that contradicts your ideas. The truth is that Jonathan and David were lovers by their own admission. In their culture and time in history, men commonly had males for their highest love, and used women as objects for personal pleasure, raising male heirs, and keeping the male's property in order, such as cattle, servants and tangible assets. Women had no voice in matters, and if you want to see how far the Middle East has come with regard to women's rights, you need look no further than a burqa.

Pedro, you really need to read the book, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." You might finally realize that you are kicking against God, because He made His gay children with the same amount of love as He used to make his hetero children. You will have a lot to answer to Him for when you finally arrive before Him on Judgment Day. He is going to most likely ask you why you thought you had a right to sit in judgment against His children who are simply different from you.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Pedro. What has feeling got to do with procreation? By your logic heterosexual couples, who are infertile, have a lesser form of love than those who can have children. Does the quality of the love between man and woman deteriorate once the woman reaches menopause? Love between couples has nothing to do with having children. Also, if raising children is the measure of quality within relationships, same sex couples can adopt and give just as much love as their differently gendered fellows. Many of them do nowadays.


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

christopheranton you should slow down with your reasoning powers. What I said has nothing to do with infertile couples having a lesser love than those who can have children, or about menopause. I said that homosexual desire to have children which is something which goes against their own sexual practices. They desire to have what can be made through heterosexual relationships. That some couples are infertile does not mean that they do not try to make the baby, if they have some physical situation that impedes do not take away that they are making the right effort and not something against nature. A woman having menopause is another natural process itself, would you say that shy could already had children through the only means that nature gave humans for that purpose. Only homosexual couples who insist that they have some type of sexual orientation only to the opposite sex and still want to have what is a result of a natural process between heterosexual have real problem here. Your observations of my comment are similar to your fallacious observations about the oozing homoeroticism in some biblical passages.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Pedro. Homosexuality is not against nature unless you want to accuse Bonobos and all the other animals, that practise it, of sinning. It exists throughout the natural world, including the human species and it is a quite acceptable form of sexual expression. I won’t rehash the arguments about what the Bible says. They have already been addressed exhaustively. I will only say, that if God created humans, He created homosexuals. Are you saying that the Creator made a mistake?


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Pedro,

What an absurd and crude observation technique you use to declare "facts" as you see them. There are heterosexual couples who do NOT want children, so what does that make them? And just because a couple cannot bear children does not mean that their relationship is against God, or, as you put it, against Nature. And I ask you, what in the world does against Nature have to do with anything? Homosexuality appears in Nature equally, if not more, than in humans. I can't wait to hear your definitions.


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

Hanavee I have to agree with Deborah. Your reasoning abilities have much to be desired for someone who says did so much scholarly work. Heterosexual couples who do not want to have couples; yes, I know is a sad reality. That is one of the major purposes of marriage as established in the very Bible you say you understand so well. read genesis Genesis 1:28. Against nature, yes, the example brought forth by christopheranton that the bonobos have homosexual relationships do not dictate human beings should do the same. Hey the lion have many lionesses, is that an argument in favor of poligamy; the female of some species kill the male, and sometime eat it, is that an argument in favor of the "Black Widow Syndrome", etc.

Christopheranton your assertion about your own observations make manifest how little you understand about the methodologies established for interpreting the Bible. You say:

I won’t rehash the arguments about what the Bible says. They have already been addressed exhaustively.

What does exhaustively mean for you, seeing what you perceive to be "oozness"; and rehash your arguments you should if you really understand and discover all those things you placed here. I tend to agree with DMz that you just read some books and regurgitated what you found without doing any serious investigation yourself into the contents.

oops, I cannot leave without calling attention to your last argument without any logical basis. God created homosexuals, really; why, just because they exist? That is your only basis for such a claim. Well did God created addicts, drunkards, people with cancer, children with disabilities? I think not. Let us stop blaming God for everything wrong. Homosexuals decided to have sex with people of their own sex for whatever reason; do not use as an excuse now that God made you like that and take responsibility for who you are.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I am not blaming God for anything wrong in my life Pedro, at least as far as my sexuality is concerned. I relish my sexuality and thank my Creator for giving it to me. I'm perfectly happy with it as it is. I do sometimes have to wonder about who created the homophobics. They don't seem to reflect the divine very effectively. Perhaps they come from a much darker source. What do you think?


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Pedro wrote:

"Hanavee I have to agree with Deborah."

Good, because she said that the Bible does NOT condemn gays.

Pedro wrote:

" Your reasoning abilities have much to be desired for someone who says did so much scholarly work."

Typical comment by someone who offers absolutely zero fact for anything he says here. I have always backed everything I have said with fact. Read every one of my posts...filled with proper citations and facts, scholarly interpretations of the original language used for reference Where's your data, Pedro? I am still waiting for you to offer more than just bigoted bombast.

Pedro wrote:

" Heterosexual couples who do not want to have couples; yes, I know is a sad reality. That is one of the major purposes of marriage as established in the very Bible you say you understand so well. read genesis Genesis 1:28."

The "MAJOR PURPOSE?" Really? Genesis 1:28 simply says that "God blessed..." It does NOT say that God commanded. This passage is merely showing that God gave the humans the ability to procreate and multiply, rather than make these a dying species that would soon become extinct. You need to read your Bible a little better. That verse does NOT equate a commandment. It is merely a blessing in which God says that humans will be a species that will be fruitful and live, rather than be wiped out. God blessed...He did NOT command. Get it right.

And if that verse was a commandment, then everyone on this planet would be doomed, because we would produce to the point of destruction, and in some countries, such as China and India, that is already a fact.

Pedro wrote:

"Against nature, yes, the example brought forth by christopheranton that the bonobos have homosexual relationships do not dictate human beings should do the same. Hey the lion have many lionesses, is that an argument in favor of poligamy; the female of some species kill the male, and sometime eat it, is that an argument in favor of the "Black Widow Syndrome", etc."

You offer all of these examples that show Nature does the same things we do, yet you made the point that homosexuality is AGAINST Nature as a reason that it is wrong. You really know how to contradict yourself.. Against Nature would mean that homosexuality does NOT exist in Nature. You really show your ignorance repeatedly.

And what do lions having multiple partners have anything to do with right or wrong when humans have more than one wife? Your patriarch King Solomon had 1,000 wives. King David had multiple wives. Want to talk about their relationship with God?

Pedro wrote:

"Christopheranton your assertion about your own observations make manifest how little you understand about the methodologies established for interpreting the Bible."

You, Pedro, show that, if anybody knows absolutely nothing about the "proper" methodologies established for interpreting the Bible, it is YOU. Not once have I seen you show anything resembling proper exegesis, interpretation of original language for proving a point, or even a "scholarly" quote. It is always your opinion of the world being flat, and all because you say so, which is the abyss of ignorance from which all pain and suffering that is wrought against humans originates. All the wars fought on this planet have been created by ignorance, so you would think that someone who claims to follow the teachings of the Bible would be trying to find the truth, rather than perpetuate prejudice, ignorance and hate.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

For everyone and no one in particular.

My husband was born in Israel, into the Jewish family. I converted to Judaism by choice, so when I proudly say I am Jewish, I mean it. I’ve been Jewish since I was 18 years old.

I am as much a Jewish person, as someone born to a Jewish mom.

My job as a Jewish person is to teach the truth, and to be a light.

Torah means “instruction” or “teaching.” Torah is God’s instruction to Mankind. Incorporated in the Torah are Mitzvot for Jewish people. A Mitzvah means a commandment, but in a deeper sense means a connection.

A Jewish person may connect with God in ways, which embrace the entire spectrum of human activity.

By giving the Jewish commandments/connections, the Jewish person in his daily life would constantly reflect the Shechinah, emulate the Divine example, and permeate the material with the spiritual.

This is the meaning of the title the Chosen People. But what does this title mean? God chose the Jewish people to be a “Kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). The word “priest” here does not mean a priest in the literal sense, for not all the Jewish are descendents of the tribe of Levi, which is the priestly tribe. Rather it refers to a “priestly function.” The function of a priest is to bring people closer to God and to bring God closer to the people. On a national level, the Jewish people would serve as the priest among the nations, or as the prophet Isaiah put it, a “light to the nations.”

This responsibility is fully discharged when the Jewish people are a holy nation; when they conduct themselves with holiness according to God’s commands. The word holy means separate or distinct. The Mitzvot distinguish the Jewish and separates them from the rest of the world in every sphere of activity.

When the Jewish keep the Mitzvot he distinguishes himself and becomes connected to the Divine, hence creating an abode for God in this world and thus fulfilling the purpose of creation.

When looking at the divine and His Torah, we are to see the purity in scripture, not the dirty, or dirty minded garbage.

Sex outside marriage is not pure, for the straight or gay people. To say God took what is not pure, and taught it in the Torah is blasphemy, not purity.

If David and Jonathan had been impure in their actions..God would not have focused the world on them.

Anytime someone in the Torah is found doing something wrong, it is to show the outcome, the results, and the consequences, of their sins. They are not emulating the Divine example

You are taking the letter of the law, as the Pharisees did, and not seeing the spiritual


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I never claimed to have interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls, just that I am Jewish

On my website I display all of my husband’s, and my licenses, and certificates, for anyone to see. Even my Smicha certificate, showing my ordination as a rabbi into Judaism. In the Jewish life, being a Rebbe gives us authority to give advice or judgment in Jewish law.

Smicha is also spelled as, semikha.

What is known as Classical semikhah refers to a type of ordination that, according to Jewish teaching, traces a line of authority back to Moses and the seventy elders.

************************************************

When a rude message was written to me in Hebrew, it was not so only I could read it, and it was not just between the person who wrote it, and me.

Thousands, even millions who view hubpages, can read Hebrew, so they already knew what was said before I translated it.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I would like to make a couple of comments

Chris you said Quote

1. “Pedro. Homosexuality is not against nature unless you want to accuse Bonobos and all the other animals, that practise it, of sinning. It exists throughout the natural world, including the human species and it is a quite acceptable form of sexual expression. I won’t rehash the arguments about what the Bible says. They have already been addressed exhaustively. I will only say, that if God created humans, He created homosexuals

2. Are you saying that the Creator made a mistake?” End Quote

My Replies to:

1. Animals were made to act on instinct, not rational, objective thinking. In Humans the animal instinct, is called the Id consciousness

Humans make decisions, and choices, animals don’t. The Law was handed to mankind, but not to animals. Humans can sin, animals can’t. So this argument is not even a bit valid.

2. I am not saying God made a mistake when gay people were born.

But God does say he is sorry after he created humans, in Genesis 6 He even grieved over it.

Genesis 6:6

“And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

Exodus 32:14

“And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people”.

God is God, but He has changed his mind several times Unlike what many think, and teach, God does not look way off into the future to see what will happen, he just lets it happen.

The only time he did this, is when He put the words of prophecy in the mouth of His prophets.

Unlike mankind, God is allowed to do what He wants.

Only the first humans were directly created by God, in His image, all others came about after the so called fall of man, through sexual reproduction, and are in the image of their parents.

The Torah says this in Genesis 5:3

Genesis 5:3

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

Hanavee I do not go into quoting because at length other people have done it excellently,ie. Deborah, and DMz powerful observations have not been answered yet by Christopheron. The only thing typical here is your attitude, defending something that Bible opposes completely and when shown to not have proven anything as Deborah did just plain empty rhetoric. Yeah the world is in mess and is by people who defend immoral behavior using the Bible as a cover;isnt it? You got that right. Promoting lifestyles which contradict Jesus' teaching as if they were his own words. On that I agree with you.

About Deborah supporting homosexuality... I guess you did not read what I wrote that I read her article, another typical behavior. that is why I do not put much in here; you and Christopheron think are the judges of what is correct but refuse to listen to people like Deborah, who might believe in homosexuality, and you agree with that on that point. But she argued thousand times much better than you that homosexuality is not where you say it is in the Bible, and you insist.

Nothing the only wrong attitudes here is yours utilizing your degrees to promote a viewpoint contrary to a book you should love and respect. And I, as Deborah had enough of commenting here.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

He either made us gay or He didn't. It depends on whether you believe Genesis is history or just an allegory. I believe the latter. But whether I was created homosexual, or was born this way as a result of evolution, it goes against the notion of the goodness of God, that He would allow a whole section of society to be condemned to either sin, or be celibate. The only sensible conclusion to reach is that same sex relationships are fine in God's eyes. Otherwise, He must be cruel and not good.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Chris

As I said:

Only the first humans were directly created by God, in His image, all others came about after the so called fall of man, through sexual reproduction, and are in the image of their parents.

Your parents created you. God stopped creating on the 7th day (7 million, or billion years?, whatever it was)

When mankind chose pleasure over God, he allowed them their pleasure, with pain. (In woman's case, childbirth)

The Torah says this in Genesis 5:3

Genesis 5:3

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Sin is described in the English bible as:

"Transgression of the law"

1 John 3:4

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Since being gay does not transgress any of the laws of the Gentiles

gay people are not sinning

You might want to read my hub, about a new finding. If in a hurry start in the middle of my hub

http://deborah-sexton.hubpages.com/hub/Choice-Or-G...


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Pedro,

You defy everything you say. You say that the Bible condemns homosexuality, yet you offer no proofs, because there are none. And when offered a scholarly book that took forty years in the making, "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality," you flee rather than learn. The truth scares you! Ignorance is your first love.

One of your most illogical comments is to say that the world is a mess because of immorality. Define immorality. Then study history,because change and evolution have always scared some people into declaring the "new" as immoral. That argument is as old as history. I guess the world is a mess because everyone is not following YOUR ideology, and just like the Taliban and other self-righteous zealots who base their concepts of immorality on what THEY think is wrong, not on what is actually right and wrong universally, you have a set of ideals that are arrived at through YOUR set of "taught" values, and the rest of the world should march to YOUR drum beat. The Taliban are against equal rights for women, against all forms of music, against flying kites...virtually against everything YOU do daily. Does that make them right? Hell no! And does your misinterpretation of the Bible give you any more rights than they have? Again, hell no! You can live in your cave of darkness and ignorance, and you can say that God made your cave, but that is a lie. YOU dug the cave of ignorance you call home, and you use your ignorance to try to stop others from living in the light of genuine truth. You cannot support your ignorance by offering anything other than your misinterpretations of the Bible, your private prejudices and bigotries, and your sick needs to have everybody living identical to your narrow-minded precepts. It is YOUR kind of ignorance that has been the cause of physical pain and suffering put upon so many people, and in this day and age, we who know the Truth have decided that we all have had enough of your bull crap. When people commit suicide because they cannot take the pain inflicted on them daily by homophobes who make life a living hell for them, their deaths cannot be allowed to simply be glossed over and ignored, and people like you who are equally responsible for the doctrine of hate that you preach need to be dealt with by showing you that, not only are you wrong, but that your ignorance and hatred will no longer be tolerated. We will not sit by quietly and listen to people like you who teach that children of God who are born gay are somehow defective and in need of changing so that they become more like you. Look into a mirror. The person in dire need of changing is staring right at you.


Pedro Morales profile image

Pedro Morales 2 years ago

Wow Hanavee I am glad you are not the Pope during the Middle Ages. Because a book might have taken 40 years in the making or 100 years does not automatically makes it right. Lots of people have challenged both of your positions with powerful reasoning, and both of you have not answered their objections, though you want to insist you have basically by using the same arguments and providing no clear proof(BTW you are the one presenting a new radical theory, you need to provide the proofs0; that is all folks!

May God bless you greatly and lead you to eternal happiness!


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Pedro On my hub I answered some of your questions about scripture contradictions


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Pedro,

What nonsense! We are not talking about how long it took to make a book in the Middle Ages, since that has absolutely no relevance to the point made, that being, the book "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality," represents forty years of intense scholarly research that led to its ultimate publication. Ph.D's who have read this book have given it high praise, so I think I will listen to them, since they offer fact instead of prejudice to back their statements. Your analogy that any book that takes a long time to produce is not, therefore, scholarly, which is like saying that the translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls should have been done in days instead of decades.

You further say that lots of people have challenged my reasoning with powerful reasoning. Really? Who? When? What did I miss? Because I have no idea of what you are talking about.

And I am presenting a radical new theory? Guess again. Anti-homosexual bigotry did not begin until the 4th Century under the reign of Emperor Constantine as a political move led by the Nicenes. History shows that homosexuality was not viewed as abnormal for thousands of years more than the reverse view, which anti-homosexual view is relatively new. Even during the times of Jesus, homosexuality was considered normal, and many of the contemporary Roman emperors had male companions. Jesus knew homosexuals, and never once did He condemn them. You really need to study more before making such a factually incorrect statement as that.

And when you say that I have provided no clear proof, under what mushroom have you been hiding? Of all people, you are the one who is guilty of making bigoted remarks that have no factual basis to back them up. Your theology does not square with God's reality. He made all of His gay children, He loves the way He made them, and woe to those who sit in judgment against His creation.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Pedro

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?

If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.

Anyone saying he did is grasping for straws, and lying

In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

If anyone disagrees post scripture


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

He said lust was wrong

1 John 2:16

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality. He usually answered questions when someone asked.

Apparently no one asked, so he said nothing about it.

I don’t care if the Gentile’s Messiah did say anything, he can’t change any law ordained, or spoken by God.

Your Jesus did say that God’s laws would not pass till Heaven and Earth passed away

The bible has to be studied and researched, not just read.

Let’s look at what Jesus did say.

Here he speaks on divorce, and refers back to the beginning when God made the rules and laws on divorce. The Pharisees ask him if divorce is allowed.

He says Moses may have allowed it, but not God.

When gay people are allowed to marry, they will not be allowed to divorce their spouse, any more than straight people are.

Matthew 19:7-9

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Jesus says anyone who divorces is wrong, and if they remarry, they commit adultery

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

When Jesus said this, he was speaking to a multitude.

Matthew 5:28

28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This does not mean men can look on men with lust and it’s okay.

It’s apparent that he saw no reason to speak to man on man.

Lust is lust, and it is for everyone who looks with lust

on another with lust. Sin is sin, and don’t think that some people aren’t punished for it, and others are.

Agree or not, like it or not, until gay people marry, they are committing adultery in their hearts, if they engage in sex, or lust outside of marriage.

In the meantime, they are to abstain.

Hanavee quotes the bible and uses it to try to prove his points, but we see him getting angry and calling people names, and looking down on us.

Yet he must obey all scripture, not a few

Matthew 5:22

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

Deborah.

If you are going to comment on somebody's hub, at least show evidence that you have read it.

Jesus was not silent on the subject of homosexuality. Let me paste this excerpt to help you.

"The feelings of Jesus on the subject are best found in the story of the centurion's servant/lover. The roman centurion is constantly held up to us as an example of great faith in Jesus. But the plain fact that he was homosexual is generally ignored. It didn’t bother Jesus Christ. Why should it bother his followers?

Then there is the curious one about the three categories of Eunuch. The term eunuch does not just mean a man without "his bits". It actually means a man without sexual interest in women. Jesus refers to three types of eunuch. One is a eunuch that has been that way from birth. Since most scientific opinion believes in homosexuals being born that way, what Our Lord meant should be pretty obvious. There is also a story in The Acts of the Apostles, in which St Philip baptises a eunuch. That one needs to be thought about as well".


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Chris

I don’t need another’s view on it. I am educated in the Hebrew bible, and history

It means all three. Those castrated, those born that way, and those who made themselves Eunuchs. So why are you saying it doesn't mean someone without his bits. It does in one of the examples.

Eunuchs were not gay, and they were not just those who did not desire women.

Jewish history teaches that when the Hebrews were in Egypt, some were castrated and made to be overseers of their women. IF they had been gay men, there would not have been any reason to castrate them.

I’ve met mealy little men who didn’t like women or men.

Judaism has always forbidden all forms of castration.

Read 2 Kings 20

Here Isaiah is speaking to Hezekiah. Isaiah told him there would come a day when those of Babylon would carry all that he had away.

He said any children Hezekiah might have in the future would also be taken and made eunuchs. It would not be their choice.

The only way anyone can make someone a Eunuch-or have no desire for a woman, is through castration. Can anyone make you stop desiring who you desire? No

No one knew if his FUTURE children would be gay or straight, but they would be MADE eunuchs to serve in the palace.

2 Kings 20:16-18

16 And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord.

17 Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.

18 And of thy sons THAT SHALL ISSUE FROM THEE, which thou SHALT beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (it does not say they would be gay, or made gay, and serve in the palace, they would be castrated)


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

According to the the New Testament, a Roman centurion asked Jesus for help because his boy servant was ill. Jesus offered to go to the centurion's house to perform the healing, but the centurion suggested that Jesus perform the healing at a distance. When Jesus heard this, he said:

Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, whern there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.

And the boy was healed at that very hour.

Matthew 8:5-13 (TNVI)

“ When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly." Jesus said to him, "Shall I come and heal him?" The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

WHERE DOES IT SAY, OR HINT AT THAT ANYONE WAS GAY?

Again in Luke

Luke 7:1-10 (TNVI)

“ When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

Author John Clowes commented that the use of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob refers to the degree of blessedness by which people are admitted to the feast, in that Abraham signifies the celestial degree, Isaac the spiritual and Jacob the natural degree.

Only Luke 7:2 refers to the servant as doulos, unambiguously meaning "servant". Elsewhere the term translated from the Greek as "servant" is pais, which can be translated in a number of different ways including "child" (e.g., Matt 2:16; Luke 2:43,8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), "son" (John 4:51), "servant" (Luke 15:26, Acts 4:25), or be unclear whether "son" or "servant" is meant. (this word is cognate to the root of the term "pederasty," which was already in widespread use at the time).

HE WAS NOT HIS LOVER


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Have you been away Chris? or just not approving my comments?

If it is the latter, what are you afraid of? That people will understand what I am saying?

There's three or four comments you haven't approved


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

There you go Deborah. I do have other things to deal with in my life. I'll answer you about the centurion and his "pais" if I get time. Until then, your comments can stay unanswered.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

There I go again?

Remember, I speak, read, and write Greek. So give me more info on "pais"

Make it your own info, not things found on the internet.

I can find many claims on the internet which are not true.

I first starting speaking Greek when I moved to a predominantly Greek town, and school, when I was twelve years old. Then my sister married a Greek man, and she and I took Greek classes.

In case you say differently, here I am writing Greek phonetically, about three years ago, on Hubpages forum

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/35982


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Today lover in Greek is εραστής pronounced erastí̱s

Today son in Greek is υιός pais

Pais is son, not anywhere close to lover.

γιός, and υιός


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

The Jewish bible gave those laws to the chosen Hebrew Priests and people only, and not to the Gentiles (those not Hebrew) but the English New Testament does, and you are trying to prove your point with it

Paul spoke against the gays and transgendered, to the Gentiles, when he said

1 Corinthians 6:9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

For those who un-academically confuse the Greek of the New Testament with the Greek spoken today, one needs remind them that the two are not the same. It would be like speaking Latin to an Italian. To assume that what a word means in modern Greek is what it meant in the time of Jesus is the height of ignorance. If you are going to make a point, then do so by demonstrating proper etymology and Biblical exegesis.

The term "pais" cannot be understood by any such attempt to use a modern Greek dictionary. To properly understand the meaning of the word as used in the eighth chapter of the Book of Matthew, one must do two things: One must study the ancient culture of Rome at that time, and one must absolutely study Koine Greek, the written and spoken Greek of that period (which I have).

At that particular time in history, there was no such thing as sexual identity. Labeling sexual identity, as in orientation, did not occur until the late 19th Century. Sex was simply sex, and the parameters were defined not by what we observe today, but by a totally different set that was entrenched in that society then. Many Roman emperors were married to men, and men having male lovers as sexual companions was the norm. A man would usually have a familia, or a unit that consisted of sons, daughters, slaves and cattle, plus a wife to act as overseer of the estate, but women were not considered the equals of men, and for conversation and sex, they had male lovers. Very common. Typically, the younger male in the relationship was referred to as the pais.

The centurion in the story asks Jesus to heal his "entimos doulos," his beloved, or honored, servant. He also uses the term pais, indicating that the servant in question is the junior partner in their relationship. No where in the Bible does anyone ever ask Jesus to heal a servant, since that would be like asking Him to heal their livestock, such was the caste of servants. Further, it was common for Romans to purchase slaves for sex, and Roman law granted the Roman soldier the right to have sex with his slaves. No high-ranking and powerful centurion would ever go to these great lengths to ask famous healer like Jesus to waste His time on someone they thought of as equal to their cattle. For a Roman centurion of the financial status and authority of this man to ask Jesus to heal someone, that person had to be very special. To suggest that he did so purely out of humanitarian desires is ludicrous. For a great example of this type of relationship, study the Roman Emperor Hadrian and his young pais, Antinous.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . .

I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

We already know what word Paul is using here for fornicators, pornoi, and since this issue has been dealt with, suffice it to say that we already know Paul is referring to the prostitutes. Idolators is easy even if one does not know Greek, because it is literal in the sense that this is talking about the cult temple worship. As for adulterers, it might be good to remind people that wives were property of men. While a man could go out and have sex outside of his home, his wife could not, and that under penalty of death. Furthermore, if a man had sex with another man’s wife, that man had committed adultery, that is, he had unlawfully had sex with another man’s “property.” This, too, was a punishable offense with punishments ranging from severe monetary remuneration to death. Consensual sex between unmarried people was not condemned. What was, however, was having sex with the property of another man, his wife, even if he was not using her due to his involvement with hetaerai, or hetaeroi. But, let’s get to two words that have been wrestled with needlessly for far too long—µαλακοὶ “malakoi,” and ἀρσενοκοῖται “arsenokoitai.”

To say that these two words have caused trouble is a gross understatement, and the only reason that they have caused so much trouble is because homophobes want them to say homosexual (which they don’t). Those who attempt to translate these words without historic research coupled with linguistic research, will never understand what they truly mean. First, let’s look at some of the thoughts that have come down to us over the years.

To understand the word malakoi, we first need to study the word arsenokoitai. To show how far off people got from the path of truth in their search for this strange word’s meaning, this word was commonly translated as “masturbators” during the time of Martin Luther. Of course, as this “sin” began to lose its stigma, something more “sinful” had to be inserted, and as homosexuals began to be the favored “sinners,” the attacks began to focus more on homosexuality. However, the word homosexual had not yet been invented. Thus, the King James translators wrestled with phrases, rather than one-word terms, and we ended up with such phrases as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” It is thought by many experts that Paul actually coined this word himself, for two reasons: one, it appears nowhere before Paul, though later writers use it, such as the Sibylline Oracles, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum; and two, we have much extant Greek homosexual erotic literature that survives today, and in none of it does this word ever appear. Therefore, this word, most likely coined by Paul, is one of Paul’s ways of saying something he detests without naming it outright. He does this as a Pharisee trained in pesher, saying without naming, using signs and symbols, and he says this as a Stoic who finds the activities of those he names as being detestable. So, then, who are these people?

Malakoi means “soft ones,” and arsenokoitai is a compound word composed of arseno, man, and koitai, beds. So, if you like soft beds, you are in trouble. Just kidding. Knowing the Greek roots does no one any good, yet this is where people who know just enough Greek to get in trouble end their research and go, “Aha!” Nope. Wrong! Just getting started, and if you stopped there, then you really are the blind leading the blind. Since there is no Greek word arsenokoitai, even though there is a Greek word malakoi, these two words are put together for a reason, and we have to play detective to finally unlock their secrets.

Whom did Paul detest so much that he disliked naming them? The temple prostitutes. And what did they do, among other things, that Paul found detestable? They were feminine in their sexual activities, taking the role of women by allowing themselves to be penetrated anally and dressing in women’s attire. The malakoi are easy to translate. They are the male temple prostitutes, the galloi, galli. For those who erroneously think this word means homosexuals, because they perceive homosexuals as effeminate, that thought is in error for two reasons: effeminacy is not a trait of homosexuality, but a trait of effeminacy, and warriors in the days of Paul had homosexual liaisons that were praised in literature as the relationships of real men. Homosexuality was never deemed effeminate, the galloi/galli, on the other hand, were. But who are the arsenokoitai? That one is more difficult, since this word is not a part of the culture, or the language; Paul’s nickname for something, or someone, and knowing what accompanied the male temple prostitutes helps, because there were men whose function it was to oversee these “malakoi.” Men who were either their masters, owners, or teachers, former malakoi themselves who were now too old to be of service, so they became pimps.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Now, for those who like to think that they have another “aha” moment by citing the fact that the Septuagint “seems” to use this word (it does not) and that, therefore, Paul would be familiar with this use, I have to point out several things. First, Leviticus 18:22 was originally written in Paleo-Hebrew, and the phrase used there is “vet zachar lo tishkav mishkveh ishah,” and as I have laboriously pointed out in my book Leviticus Revealed, does not refer to homosexuality, but instead refers to men having sex with male temple prostitutes in the cult temples. Nothing more, nothing less! To attempt to say that the Septuagint gave Paul the word he uses, and thus, is the key to translating arsenokoitai is absolutely ignorant and wishful thinking on the part of those who simply cannot let go of their homophobia and must grasp at any ray of hope to keep their bigotry alive and well. In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22 is written:

“. . . meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos . . .”

and Leviticus 20:13 is written:

“. . . hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos”


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

What we know from historical facts, the male temple prostitutes, galloi/galli, were young men, often either purchased from slave traders, or donated to the temple for such purposes. They acted like women, they painted their faces like women, perfumed their bodies, wore feminine clothes, practiced walking and talking like women, so much so, that in all purposes, they were beautiful women. Let’s quote Philo here:

“And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually rewards given for intemperance and effeminacy. At all events one may see men-women continually strutting through the market place at midday, and leading the processions in festivals; and impious men as they are, having received by lot the charge of the temple and beginning the sacred and initiating rites, and concerned even in the holy mysteries of Ceres

And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes . . .

But if there was a general indignation against those who venture to do such things, as was felt by our lawgiver . . .”

Ceres is another name for Cybele, and the lawgiver Philo refers to is Moses, whereupon, he goes on to quote Moses. Clothing themselves in purple was a reference to the feminine attire these young men wore. Again, let’s quote Philo:

“Moreover, another evil, much greater than that which we have already mentioned, has made its way among and been let loose upon cities, namely, the love of boys, which formerly was accounted a great infamy even to be spoken of, but which sin is a subject of boasting not only to those who practice it, but even to those who suffer it, and who, being accustomed to bearing the affliction of being treated like women (here, the term nosos thelia is used, which means “the female affliction.”), waste away as to both their souls and bodies, not bearing about them a single spark of a manly character to be kindled into a flame, but having even the hair of their heads conspicuously curled and adorned, and having their faces smeared with vermilion, and paint, and things of that kind, and having their eyes penciled beneath, and having their skins anointed with fragrant perfumes (for in such persons as these a sweet smell is a most seductive quality), and being well appointed in everything that tends to beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to devote their constant study and endeavours to the task of changing their manly character into an effeminate one.”

These young men are “the soft ones,” the “malakoi,” and the men who pay for their services are the “arsenokoitai,” “men who take them to bed.”


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Anyone of you wanting to sin against God, by being sexual outside of wedlock, that's between you and God. Go ahead

I've warned you and that's all I can do.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I didn't get the meaning of pais from a dictionary.

I do not speak ancient Greek, but modern Greek, however the word pais did not go from meaning lover, to meaning son, and it does mean son.

Languages do not change that way

This is a scheme intended to deceive, and to prove their point.

They want to teach that God's word allows gay people to do what they want, and sin all they want. Yet those who do God's will, are not allowed


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Like I said, In case you say differently, here I am writing Greek phonetically, about three years ago, on Hubpages forum

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/35982


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee, you are always saying you write what you post, but I see you have copied the above from here

You're not quoting, just copying

http://books.google.com/books?id=w2GQO8CbBMgC&pg=P...


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

One sin in Leviticus 18:16 is:

Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

This does not exempt brother with brother-in-law

Gay people are not exempt.

Since David was Jonathan's brother-in-law, had they engaged in this sin, Jonathan and David would have been stoned

It would have been as though Jonathan slept with his sister Michal since she was David’s wife, and Jonathan’s sister

Leviticus 18:6

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 18:16

16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

1 Samuel 18:20

And Michal Saul's daughter loved David:

1 Samuel 18:27….And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

1 Samuel 18:28

And Saul saw and knew that the Lord was with David, and that Michal Saul's daughter loved him.

You can hope it says it is Okay, but it doesn't.

When you are allowed to marry a member of the same sex, then, and only then will it be okay, and only with your spouse.

To turn God’s word into something it’s not, is blasphemy…and I ask God to give a great sign to Chris and Hanavee, that what I am saying is truth.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Pedro

You Said Quote “ I cannot leave without calling attention to your last argument without any logical basis. God created homosexuals, really; why, just because they exist? That is your only basis for such a claim. Well did God created addicts, drunkards, people with cancer, children with disabilities? I think not. Let us stop blaming God for everything wrong. Homosexuals decided to have sex with people of their own sex for whatever reason; do not use as an excuse now that God made you like that and take responsibility for who you are. “ End Quote

I agree with you Pedro..God put mankind on earth to have dominion over it, and everything in it..and this is the way man runs the earth. Is God happy with the things mankind has done..I don’t think so. God doesn’t like any kind of sin. Mankind wants all the pleasure he can find. Sin, sin, sin.

Then they try to condone their sin by saying the bible teaches that it’s okay.

This world is full of carnal minded people.

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote: "Languages do not change that way."

Really?! Do you even know the definition of etymology? I am not going to define it for you. Go look it up. You might learn something, because if language did not evolve, there would be no science of etymology. Here's a few for you:

Abandon - We use the word to mean “give up completely”, like abandoning hope, abandoning a baby or surrendering ourselves to emotion. But, in 14th century Middle English it meant “to subjugate or subdue” someone or something – coming from the French phrase “mettre a bandon” meaning “to give up to a public ban”.

Addict - In Roman times addicts were people who were financially ruined given as slaves to the people they owed money to. It comes from the Latin addictus, which meant “a debtor awarded as a slave to his creditor”.

In the 1600's it was used in the sense of giving yourself to someone or some practice. Only in the early 1900's did it become associated with dependency on morphine and later other drugs.

Awful - In the 1300's, it originally meant “inspiring wonder” and was a short version of “full of awe”. But now the word has purely negative connotations.

Broadcast - The way television spreads the news, but in 1767 “broadcast” meant sowing seeds with a sweeping movement of the hand or a “broad cast”. Its media use began with radio in 1922.

Cute - Cute was a shortened form of acute, meaning “keenly perceptive and shrewd” in the 1730's. But, by the 1830's it was part of American student slang, meaning “pretty, charming and dainty”.

And, the original sense of “dainty” was “worthy and substantial”.

Decimate - We use the term to mean “totally destroy” but the original definition was “to kill one in 10”. The brutal practice was used by the Roman army in the fifth century BC as a way to inspire fear and loyalty.

Lots were drawn and one out of every 10 soldiers would be killed by their own comrades. If one member of a squad acted up, anybody could pay the ultimate price.

Nervous - In the 1400's, a nervous person was actually “sinewy and vigorous” – as the Latin word nervus applied to both sinews and nerves.

By 1665 nerves were better understood, and by 1734, the term meant “suffering a disorder of the nervous system”.

By 1740, it meant “restless, agitated, lacking nerve” and it then became a widespread euphemism for mental illness – forcing the medical community to coin “neurological” to replace it in the older sense.

“Nervous wreck” was first used in 1899.

I have quoted just s few of the thousands of words that have changed, and every language on the planet has undergone the same evolutionary process. I am a degreed linguist, but I don't expect everyone to have that same advantage. Still, you should know this simple fact about language. So, when you wrote: "Languages do not change that way," you demonstrate that you obviously are not as educated as you portray yourself.

Next on our list, you wrote:

"This is a scheme intended to deceive, and to prove their point."

Where have I heard that argument before? Hmmm? Like every time an ignorant person had to face facts? If you can't face reality, then you start swinging ignorance as your basis for having bigoted and prejudice views.

When Copernicus tried to explain why the sun does not revolve around the Earth, people like you could not let go of their Flat Earth cosmology and just knew that Copernicus had a "scheme." You wrote: "To prove their point?" As if gay people HAVE to prove their existence is permitted? Their point being that homosexuality is normal sexual behavior? Homosexuality IS normal behavior...except to people who are as warped and ignorant as you. You keep flying in the face of fact with nothing but your stupid bigotry.

You wrote:

"They want to teach that God's word allows gay people to do what they want, and sin all they want."

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. For proofs, read the book, Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." All the proofs are contained in that book - I know - I wrote it.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah is now the author of the Bible. She wrote:

"Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)" as in, this is a "sin." (Love that word "sin." What is "sin"? Hmm...a later discussion.)

Then, Deborah, the author of the Bible, wrote:

"This does not exempt brother with brother-in-law."

Would the "authoress" kindly quote chapter and verse in either the Old Testament or the New Testament" that says that? I'll be waiting for this answer with sheer delight.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

I have to laugh at what Deborah wrote:

"Hanavee, you are always saying you write what you post, but I see you have copied the above from here (then she lists a link to my book "Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality).

You're not quoting, just copying."

Deborah, sweety, if you realized how stupid your comment is, you would stop making yourself look so foolish. It would not matter if I was copying facts from the dictionary. Your point? Oh...right...that copying facts to share in a discussion makes them non-facts. Wow! That's a new one for making your point. If you will look at the picture on the back cover of that book, then look at the picture posted next to my posts, you might "get the picture." I am the author.

And, another point I need to make here - You have continually tried to bully the author of this hub by continually making the point that you are Jewish, therefore, you know all things Hebraic. And you make the point that you learned Greek (modern Greek) from living somewhere among some Greeks. You then proceed each time to point out how that makes you the "last word" on everything, which is tantamount to my saying that, because I am an American, I am an expert on the U.S. Constitution. What crap, and what arrogant crap at that. If being Jewish made you an expert on the torah, then that would make every Jew in every synagogue so self-sufficient, they would not need to be taught anything. Further, the sheer fact that there are so many different sects of Judaism with extremely different beliefs should be enough to demonstrate the fact that just being Jewish does NOT give you indisputable claim to know it all. Your "know-it-all" arrogance that relies on the simple claim that you are Jewish is one of the most ignorant things you can keep touting. Stick to facts, and prove your points through facts, not arrogant and empty bullying.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote:

"Can anyone make you stop desiring who you desire? No"

Then why your constant harangue against gay people solely because they don't have the same desires as you?

Deborah wrote:

"My job as a Jewish person is to teach the truth, and to be a light."

Then why deal in unfounded bigotry and prejudice? When shown the truth by facts, you cling to your "hand-me-down" prejudices as if they are truth, when they are nothing more than the fears of the ignorant made manifest through lack of genuine concern for what is God's reality. Homosexuality is no more a choice than is your sexual orientation. You cannot remember a time when you were of the opposite orientation that you are now, and you made a conscious choice to become the orientation that you are now. Such a ridiculous thought is exactly what you and Pedro subscribe to, that gays chose their sexual orientation. The American Medical Association and The American Psychiatric Association, just to name a few, would find your comments ludicrous, since they have better evidence than you, and their statements are that homosexuality is NOT a choice, and is unchangeable. I will take their erudite research over your unfounded and ignorant bigotry any day of the week. I like to deal in facts, not a bunch of "my daddy told me so" prejudices.

I love looking at Deborah's self-contradictions. Here's another one:

Deborah wrote: "They spoke a little differently in the bible days then they do now. Their metaphors, euphemisms, etc, were those of the Hebrews, from ancient times. So their language is nothing like ours."

Deborah recently wrote:

"Languages do not change that way"

Hmmmm....? Does Deborah have a split personality?

Deborah wrote:

" I am not saying God made a mistake when gay people were born.

But God does say he is sorry after he created humans, in Genesis 6 He even grieved over it.

Genesis 6:6

“And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

Exodus 32:14

“And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people”.

So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice. Hmmm? Fascinating. How long has this condition of yours existed, Deborah - that inability to keep track of things you say? And what an extreme prejudice to erroneously think that God was sorry that He made gay people!

And on a theological point, anthropomorphism, man creating God in man's image, complete with man's imperfections and weaknesses, shows why ancient Israelites wrote their foibles into their attempts at explaining Nature. If God is perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing, incapable of fault, then He never has to "repent" of any error He made. "And the Lord repented of the evil He thought to do." ??? Is God capable of evil? Can He make a wrong decision? Would He have to "repent?" Change His mind? Oh, so He's indecisive now? The Bible is MAN'S attempt to explain the universe. It is NOT a flawless textbook of facts dictated by the Creator.

More of Deborah's inconsistencies. Deborah wrote:

"Just one last thing. Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote

I never once said this. At least, unlike you, I'm not a liar"

Hmmm? Here's what Deborah (with her split personality) just wrote: "Then they try to condone their sin by saying the bible teaches that it’s okay."

Wow, Deborah, you've got more flip-flops than a dying fish.

I love Deborah's selective Theology. She wrote: "In Leviticus where male homosexuality is first mentioned. Though it wasn't referring to adult male to male relationships or the common man. The rule about it was given to the Levite priests, not to the world."

Funny, because (regarding the very beginning of Leviticus 18) my Tanakh says: "The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them..." and nowhere after that does the verse suddenly insert, "Oh, and don't forget...this is just for the Levites." In fact, nowhere in this chapter is there any mention of the Levites, because these were edicts being declared to the people as a whole. I love your selective Theology...cute.

And Leviticus 18:22 is NOT about homosexuality. It refers to the fertility rituals of the temple of Molech, and the new admonition to the Israelites that those who engage in the sexually-oriented fertility worship in the temple of Molech will be rendered "unclean" (toevah), and, as such, will not be permitted into the temple in Jerusalem until purified. Remember the tikvah? This verse says absolutely NOTHING about Heaven or Hell, judgment of God, the afterlife, or men's sexual love for one another. It refers solely to the fertility rituals of Molech and the new admonition to the tribe of Israel that they may no longer participate.

Then, when Deborah doubted that I had studied Hebrew, she left me a childish test of translating a common Jewish prayer that I have recited myself many times, and she lied in a stupid effort to make the simple translation seem indecipherable to all but her. Here's what she wrote:

"You sort of tried to translate what I said when you wrote this: Quote " I will comment on your little missive about the blessings of "preserving shabbat"" End Quote"

I "tried?" I stated that I would answer her stupid question when she answered my question regarding Jonathan and David, which she never did, by the way. So, I had yet to "try" to translate her little missive.

She continued:

"And you were wrong about that. I said nothing about the blessings of Shabbat."

She said "nothing" about the blessings of Shabbat? Really? The prayer says that if I preserve or keep the holiness and values of the Shabbat, God will keep me. What is not a blessing in that observance? Deborah needs to go back to school. The blessings of God on our lives from observing Shabbat are the underlying foundations of that promise. Or, is Deborah too busy lying?

And here is the one that makes me wonder if Deborah has a split personality, or is just such a liar that she gets off calling other people liars. Here is what she wrote:

"I also know being gay is no more wrong, in God's eyes, than being straight."

Okay, Deborah, you called me a liar when I said that I had studied Koine Greek and biblical Hebrew, which was such a stupid claim on your part, because you know absolutely nothing about my education and academic career, only proving that you deal in hearsay, rumor and bigotry. If you disagreed linguistically with some point, you could have cited fact for your conclusions instead of resorting to such baseless accusations. Your constant claim to fame has been that you are Jewish, and your conduct certainly makes me glad that I am not. Care to explain all of your self-contradictory comments on here? The whole world is waiting, Your Highness.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Awful still means inspiring reverential, wonder, even though it is very old fashion.

broadcast still means to scatter (seeds) by hand or machine.

All the other stuff you’ve written, cite your sources

You said Quote “Homosexuality is NOT a sin. For proofs, read the book, Homosexuality, The Bible, The Truth - The Bible Does NOT Condemn Homosexuality." All the proofs are contained in that book - I know - I wrote it. “ End Quote

You know that it is the “act outside marriage” I am speaking of, and if you haven realized it yet, then why are you acting as though you know anything about languages, if you can’t understand what I’ve written?

You said Quote “You wrote: "To prove their point?" As if gay people HAVE to prove their existence is permitted? Their point being that homosexuality is normal sexual behavior? Homosexuality IS normal behavior...except to people who are as warped and ignorant as you. You keep flying in the face of fact with nothing but your stupid bigotry. “ End Quote

Of course gay people do not have to prove their existence, but I’ll never understand how you got that from my statement saying you are trying to prove your point.

Again you can’t understand what I said, and I speak a simple language

See there again, you can’t possibly understand languages, since you can’t understand me. Or you do understand, and

you’re trying my patience, and trying to make me buckle. I won’t, I will always stand for God, and his word, and truth.

If you keep keep calling me names, and saying I said something I didn’t, I will first go to the Hub Staff, and if that doesn’t fix the problem, my husband runs the legal department of our business, and I will bring it to him

Dear Hanavee, it is you who is acting in a bigoted way, we as people usually do think what we believe is right, but you have shown complete prejudiced, and intolerance toward anyones opinion different from you own, reverting to belittling and name calling.

My statement that You Hanavee, and Chris

are using whatever was being said to prove your point is not saying you have to prove you exist, of course you exist, you’re writing stuff aren’t you.

I do not speak against gay people. As a matter of fact I fight for the rights of all transgendered and gay people. But, regardless, if straight or gay people have sex outside marriage, they are sinning.

According to scripture you do have to answer to God about any sex act, and lust that is in your heart, when it occurs outside of marriage.

What you hate most about me is that I show the true word of God, to which you can’t seem to stand, or else can’t stand. There’s two words to think about


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

Hanavee said Quote “ Deborah wrote: "They spoke a little differently in the bible days then they do now. Their metaphors, euphemisms, etc, were those of the Hebrews, from ancient times. So their language is nothing like ours."

Deborah recently wrote:

"Languages do not change that way"

I was not speaking of slang when I said language doesn’t change.

I was saying languages do not mean lover in one century and son in another. These words are not metaphors, euphemisms, or slang.

You said Quote “Hmmmm....? Does Deborah have a split personality? ‘ End Quote

More slander Hanavee, or are you impersonating a doctor? or is it you with this type of personality?

You said Quote “So, what Deborah is admitting is that gays are born gay, though she has said that homosexuality is a choice. Hmmm? “ End Quote

I have always said it is not a choice that they are born this way. Why do you think I wrote the hub about it not being a choice??

Choice or Genetics

Please point this statement out that I said.

You said Quote “ And what an extreme prejudice to erroneously think that God was sorry that He made gay people!“ End Quote

I said that God said he repented that he made all PEOPLE , because he did say it.

My statement

“ But God does say he is sorry after he created humans, in Genesis 6 He even grieved over it.”

You said Quote “ God is perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing, incapable of fault, then He never has to "repent" of any error He made. "And the Lord repented of the evil He thought to do." ??? Is God capable of evil? Can He make a wrong decision? Would He have to "repent?" Change His mind? Oh, so He's indecisive now? The Bible is MAN'S attempt to explain the universe. It is NOT a flawless textbook of facts dictated by the Creator.“ End Quote

If you knew Hebrew, you know really, than you would know the word “repent” in this context means that he was sorry he made man. Not that he needed to repent..from some wrong doing.

But it’s there in Genesis, saying God was sorry he made mankind.

You said Quote "Just one last thing. Hanavee you said quote " keep on telling gay people that moral and upright people are not gay." End quote

I never once said this. At least, unlike you, I'm not a liar"

LOL Wow! that is me quoting you, quoting me quoting you.

Better read over the things said, because you just looked really silly in your mistake

I am sick of you telling lies on me, and misquoting me


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Numbers 23:19

God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent.

Malachi 3:6

For I am the Lord, I change not.

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה כּ־עָשָׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבּוֹ

Veyinachem means that God regretted that He had made humans, sort of groaned over what He was seeing. Our current word "repented" shows you how language evolves over the centuries, one of the points I have repeatedly made here. But, regardless, of how much we read into what nacham means then and now, if God is all-knowing, then He would have known what His creation would become, and there would be no need to later change His mind. This would mean that God is capable of making mistakes. Thus, what we are reading is ancient mankind trying to describe God just like they did with all other man-made renderings that explained the universe. When they see God as some old man sitting on a throne with hands and feet and prone to all of the weaknesses of man, such as jealousy and anger, they really are speaking anthropomorphically. God is a spirit, a force that energizes all that is and has ever been, and this force is not reduced to petty human emotions. This Force created gay people just as equally as this Force created the other sexual orientations. None of us is a curse of God.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah wrote: "Of course gay people do not have to prove their existence, but I’ll never understand how you got that from my statement saying you are trying to prove your point."

I did not say that they are trying to prove their existence. I said that gay people should not have to prove their RIGHT TO EXIST. You need to learn to read better. Constantly told that they are sick, perverted, equal to drunkards thieves and liars, denied housing, medical treatment and even employment, all because of their genetically predisposed sexual orientation, gays have had enough of even the subtle, "well-intentioned" gay-bashing.


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah, if that is how you defend your position on things, throwing out threats of lawsuits (your husband and your "law department") and going to the administration of HubPages to get me deleted, you need to stop posting. If you cannot win an argument by simply stating facts, not hearsay and rumor, but facts, then you are really not someone to be arguing any point. I am not frightened by your threats, but you may want to review all the times you slandered and libeled me by calling me a liar simply because I referred to my education and academic career. You have no basis for calling me a liar, because you have no idea of my credentials, so if anyone needs to be deleted, it would have to be you. And as for your frivolous threat of legal action, please...really? I have never misquoted you, so take a long hard look at all those statements you say I falsely made. They are, every last one, taken verbatim from your posts.

Stop slamming other people, then running for help from hubby when you let your mouth overload your plate. You have arrogantly tried to trash other people on here, so I think it only fitting that you get some of it served right back to you. If you can't take it, then tone it down.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

here are at least three meanings for repent.

One meaning to be sorry for

One to change your mind

One to ask for forgiveness for sin, and stop sinning.

God is not a man that He should repent of any sin.

God did repent (was sorry) he had made man.

This is all stated in scripture.

God Himself does not change.. but He has changed His mind several times, as seen in scripture

Question:

The following text from just before the flood seems to imply that G‑d did something wrong, was sorry for it, and surprised by its happening:

"And the L-rd repented that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart. And the L-rd said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping thing and the fowls of the air, for I repent that I have made them."1

How could that be when He knows the end before the beginning?

Answer:

Here's what the ancient Midrash2 has to say on these verses:

A heretic asked R. Joshua ben Korchah: "Don't you Jews say that G‑d knows the future?"

Rabbi Joshua answered, "Yes."

"Why then," continued the heretic, "is it written that 'grieved Him in His heart'3?"

Responded R. Joshua, "Was a son ever born to you?"

"Yes," said the heretic.

"What did you do?"

"I rejoiced."

"But didn't you know that one day he will die?"

Replied the man, "One rejoices when it is a time for rejoicing, and one mourns when it is a time for mourning."

Said R. Joshua, "So it is with G‑d."

Rashi, the classic commentator, cites this Midrash and adds a few words to explain further. He adds, "Although it was known to Him that they will sin and be destroyed, He nevertheless created them for the sake of the righteous who will descend from them."

Meaning that G‑d created humankind because He wanted righteous human beings. So when He created them, He rejoiced. He knew there would be wicked people, for there cannot be righteousness without wickedness, good without bad. But now was a time to rejoice. Later, when the wicked would arise, that would be the time to mourn.

If you wish to go a little deeper, ponder this: Is G‑d involved in His creation, or does He stand beyond it? On the one hand, to be the Creator of all that exists out of nothing, He must be entirely beyond all the creation contains. On the other hand, He must be here right now in every event that occurs.

So we say that He is both—in the language of Chassidut, He is within all things and yet encompasses them all at once. To be G‑d, He must, so to speak, be of two minds at once:

He must see things from beyond and from within at the same time.


Deborah Sexton 2 years ago

I don't care about winning or losing an argument, I do care about you calling me names, and slandering me.

You keep saying I am against gay people, and that I think being gay is a choice.

You'll not find anywhere that I have stated this. I even wrote a hub saying it is in the genes, and everyone needs to stop judging gay people.

I think you are so insecure that you came in ready to fight. Well, if you want to fight, we'll do it legally if you keep on, and if the hub staff won't help..

Your arguments are stale, and wrong


Hanavee profile image

Hanavee 2 years ago from Pennsylvania

Deborah,

I am going to post this here, and if Chris once again deletes this, then I will also send it to you via the private HubPages channels. I answered your silly legal threats before, and he deleted the post. So, let me make some points very clear here:

I am not in the least bit intimidated by your childish and ridiculous threats of legal action against me.

I have not at any time committed any tortious offenses on this website, including "slandering" you. You most definitely need some proper legal advice, because they would then tell you that you are making a fool of yourself by issuing such asinine threats. You would have absolutely NO standing in any court.

At all times that I have quoted you, all quotes have been taken directly from your posts, so if doing so is slander, then you have slandered yourself; once again rendering your rantings as ludicrous.

And how do you think people see you when you say that you are going to take this matter to your husband who handles the legal matters for your business? Really? That is supposed to intimidate me? Sweety, I have lawyers on retainer for my corporation, and I can call on the most powerful law firm with a press of my speed dial. I have litigated in the past, most successfully, and have no qualms about going to court to quash any attack, but yours is absolutely hollow, because any lawyer in his right mind would throw you out of his office for wasting his time with your childish pursuit of baseless litigation, even more so for even daring to think that your case has merit in any court of respectable law for the alleged crime of slandering you on a website chat room. Not only would that attorney find you ludicrous, he or she would not destroy their personal credibility by even daring to bring such laughable litigation before a competent judge.

If you cannot argue cogently, leave...oh wait, you did that before. You said "So long," and we all thought we were finished hearing your diatribes. But, no, you came back. So, when you resort to insulting my academic credentials by calling me a liar, that is slander, and it is libel because you printed it here. I'm not here to prove my credentials, nor should I have to. I am fully capable of producing ample proof of my degrees and academic accomplishments, but they are not the point. Facts are what we should all be dealing in. If you want to simply resort to name calling, you have definitely proven yourself worthy of that task. But to threaten me with legal action for a crime that you have committed is the height of absurdity...and you call yourself a rabbi?


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 2 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom Author

I didn't delete any of your posts. Something else must have happened. You are one of the good guys.


    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article