.jpg)
Homosexuality - Hedonistic or Holy?? Defining Biblical Love
- hummingbirdofgod11
- 2 days ago
- 25 min read
Along with subjects like Biblical Marriage and the question of Christians getting Tattoos, which are just 2 of the other articles to be found on this page, Homosexuality is another sensitive subject, to say the least. In this article, I will show both Biblical and Scientific proof that Homosexuality does not go against the Bible, contrary to what many people have been taught to believe.
The truth is that this is one of the ways in which the original wording has been altered to serve the opinions and agendas of specific Christian Churches. While shifts in language usage may give rise to errors by translators who use the verbatim approach naturally, this is one that has been done purposefully in order to exert further control; resulting in greater fear, guilt, and shame than we see from Jesus at any time in His Ministry.(Which is none, btw.) And while you may think that this was only done by the Catholic Church, evidence is strong that some Protestant translators have also latched onto this deliberate twisting, and "cherry picking" practice in providing Biblical transcription to modern readers.
While there are a number of factors involved in various interpretations of Scripture, including the words themselves, the historical contexts, and the implications of these results in practical ways, the fact remains that only one of these can be accurate.
The first thing we need to address here is really the Biblical definition of sin. That, as my pastors* have phrased it, is essentially this: "Anything that negatively impacts our relationship with God." Not overly specific, is it?? While there are also categories such as trespasses and iniquity, the general sense of sin may cover literally anything. It could be something done wrong or something we didn't do that we should have. It may even be something right, simply done at a time God hasn't told us to do it!! What we discover in the full context of Scripture is that it's not always about what we do, but rather how we do it. This involves the attitude of our hearts toward God no matter the activity.*
Something else I've known to be true, on some level at least, having grown up in Church and attending a Private Baptist School is the idea that not everyone views sin in the same way. And I don't just mean the approach some have to Salvation of Grace*. What I'm talking about here is broader than that. It's about how the definitions of sin change over time and according to different cultures. The best commentary I've seen on this was from E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O'Brien in their book, "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes". Their work has covered various places in both the United States and Indonesia. They explain it this way -- "While the ISSUE of sin is universal, the DEFINITIONS of sin may be different according to various cultural and religious influences over time." The example they provide is the fact that, traditionally speaking, a "good Christian" here in the US wouldn't be caught dead smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. However, if you go to Indonesia, neither of these is considered a problem. Over there, a "good Christian" wouldn't be caught dead in a Pool Hall. No further explanation is given for this, but it shows the truth of how sin is viewed differently depending on the time and location.
Also, having the background I do, not just in "Church World", but in various denominations has provided me with some unique perspectives. For example, the 2nd minister of the Episcopal Church my mother used to play the organ for smoked cigarettes and drank in the back room before service. I'll guarantee you that none of the other pastors I've ever sat under did that!!* Communion wine, or something social, sure, but not individually, and certainly not at the church where everyone knew about it.
Which brings me to the question I'm sure many of you are thinking, "What does the Bible say about having the "appearance of evil"??* Or about being a "stumbling block"??* I know both of those are in there, right?? Yes. They are. But now, having read the example above about how sin is viewed differently according to cultural and religious influences, that changes things up a bit, doesn't it?? The definitions aren't so black and white now, are they?? So what do we do with that?? Here's the thing, it's not about specific rules, or even other people's perceptions of "evil" according to what they think is happening or what they've been taught to believe is "wrong". As I said before, it's about that person's heart towards God. It's not about perception. It's about intention. Therefore, if someone's relationship with God is not the problem, the only people to whom their "sinful" behavior would be an issue is to those whose hearts are not right themselves. (See 2 Samuel 12)
That having been said, we find hypocrisy in those "Christians" who judge others for not embracing "Christian Values". Jesus told us to "love others as yourselves". He told us "judge not lest you be judged".* How do we honestly expect to win an unbelieving world to Christ when we're not following properly ourselves?? CS Lewis understood this as an Atheist who read the Bible and discovered he was wrong. One of his quotes on politics reads -- "One cannot make man good by law; but it takes good men to make good society." He understood that morality cannot be legislated, nor should it be. (Obviously aside from murder, abuse, and theft) But something that really isn't hurting anyone should be left between them and God, don't you think?? More on this later. The bottom line here is that, unless it's specifically forbidden in Scripture, the definitions of sin are between us and God.
Let's find out what the Bible really says, shall we??
I find that starting from Genesis and working through the Bible in order works best, so we'll start there.
Old Testament passages relating to Homosexuality -- (in theory)
In Genesis 1:27-28, man has created humans. Male and female. Two kinds, just like with the animals*. He tells them to procreate and cover the earth. Turning over to Genesis 2:23-24, we read that, since woman was made from man, the two become one flesh in the marriage relationship. A brief search here shows that the Hebrew words "basar echad", meaning "one flesh" indicates an all-encompassing life bond that includes sexual connection, but is not limited to it.*
We often see this passage referred to in the context of Biblical Marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman. But here's the thing -- This assumes that the purpose of marriage is strictly to procreate, right?? So where does that leave women who are barren or men who are unable to fertilize a woman's egg?? What about those of us who find ourselves unmarried and beyond child-bearing years, but in a mutually exclusive, loving, respectful relationship??* (See also Ephesians 6) Oooops!! That leaves large gaps in the fabric, doesn't it?? So how does the Bible fill those in?? By the end of this article, we'll know...
Our next stop is in the long-destroyed regions of Sodom and Gomorrah. Was it their Homosexual urges that brought them down, or something else entirely?? Let's take a closer look, shall we??
This story is found in Genesis 18-19, but for the sake of time and space, we'll just focus on the immediate issue.
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
In verses 4 and 5 of this passage, we see that all of the men and boys had gathered. This clearly indicates that it was not just a one-on-one encounter being sought out. This was Gang Rape. And not even of Lot, but of the Angels of God.* Verse 9 shows the crowd becoming downright violent in trying to break down the door of the house.
Another important point here is that Lot and his family were foreigners in that land. Now it's not only about same-sex gang rape, but also violence and serious inhospitality. More than enough cause for God to destroy them, but as you can see, Homosexuality, in and of itself, is never specifically mentioned here. (See also Jude 1:7)
To support this idea requires that we skip, just for a second, over to Ezekiel. Our destination here is chapter 16, verses 49-50.
49 “‘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. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
The Scriptural context of these verses is God's Judgement on Israel as an "Adulterous Wife". At this time, they had allowed themselves to be heavily influenced by the Pagan practices of other nations. I read a bit further down in this passage, as it continues to speak of the abominable behaviors in common between Sodom and Israel. And you know what?? There is absolutely NO mention of Homosexuality. Verse 58 reads, "You will bear the consequences of your lewdness and your detestable practices, says the Lord.". Okay, so you may say, "Wait, doesn't the word "lewdness" refer to bad sexual behavior?? And the answer to that is, "No. No it doesn't". At least not in the way it is used here. The meaning of the original Hebrew in this verse has nothing to do with sex whatsoever. The word "lewdness" (or "zimmah") refers to the deep spiritual infidelity, idolatry, and moral corruption of Jerusalem as a faithless wife. I was going to give the full overview here, but my computer isn't letting me. The bottom line is that this passage is about the egregious and disgusting actions Israel had committed in breaking their covenant with God. The Hebrew meaning of "zimmah" is simply that of a plan, device, or scheme. The following article explains various uses of it throughout the Old Testament* --
Now we come to everyone's "favorite". The most heavily abused Homophobic verse in all of Scripture --
Leviticus 18:22
New International Version
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
And, just for kicks, let's add it's "partner" --
Leviticus 20:13
New International Version
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
We'll take these in order --
So what does Leviticus 18:22 really mean?? (Hint: it's not what you've been led to believe) While the original article I had found explains the grammar and how it basically indicates that ANY "invasion" of the woman's bedroom was bad*; I just found a solid Jewish article that supports the idea that Homosexuality is NOT FORBIDDEN in the Torah:
Although the article above covers both Leviticus 18 and 20, here's another that specifically speaks to the language used in 20:13 -- https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/
You will find that both of these are from Jewish sources, and both ultimately speak to issues of Pedophilia and/or Incest and Temple Prostitution. No sign of Homosexuality to be found here. Oh, and another interesting point I saw in more than one place in my search was that of how the Jewish Laws may or may not apply today, to either Jews or Gentiles. As we see in the New Testament, Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Now, I know some will differentiate between the types of Laws; but the fact remains that no Gentile has ever been under the Laws of Moses, so there's that...
Moving on, we find ourselves in Proverbs 6 --
Proverbs 6:16-19
New International Version
16 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him:17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,19 a false witness who pours out lies, and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Seven things the Lord hates and finds abominable, and Homosexuality isn't among them. Interesting, no??
Let's see what the New Testament has to say on the subject --
New Testament passages relating to Homosexuality -- (in theory)
Matthew 8:5-13 -- Here, we find the story of the Centurion's Servant. (also in Luke 7:1-10) This is the first miracle of Jesus involving a Homosexual situation. The following is just a brief excerpt of a scholarly article on Greek Love though the Ages
In summary, the points of the argument are:
1. Respecting the consensus of critical opinion, it is probable that Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 are both drawn from the same original account; that Matthew's version better represents that original; and that the word pais was used in that account, with Matthew preserving the word while Luke substituted doulos.
2. The word pais, when used in the context of a close non-parental relationship such as that portrayed here — a relationship that John, when using the account, found fitting and explicable as a parent-child relationship — could have conveyed to a first-century audience the implication of paederasty.
3. Not only could this account have been read as referring to a paederastic relationship, but the author of Luke, by substituting doulos for pais (thus affirming his understanding that the relationship was non-parental while using a less provocative word), and by adding the qualification that the boy was entimos, indicates that he understood it that way.
4. While it is presumed be that a deeply observant God-fearer would not practice paederasty, the possibility that this account does refer to paederasty cannot be eliminated for that reason. There were many levels of observance among God-fearers, and the details that imply that the centurion was an observant God-fearer are probably Luke's composition.
I was going to use Acts 8 and the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch here, but I can't find anything definitive from a non-biased source that says they were viewed like Homosexuals for their presumed non interest in women. (Which is odd because I know I've seen it before, thus why I was looking for it now.) This would be why they were chosen for highly responsible roles, particularly in service to women, as was this man.*
Anyway, let's turn over to another "key passage" used by hypocritical, bigoted Believers to bash the Gay Community -- You guessed it,
Romans 1 --
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
The following article explores the truth. As we saw earlier in Genesis, the primary concern focuses not on Homosexuality, but on Idolatry. Specifically, Temple Prostitution. This, as you may recall, was mentioned earlier in relation to our verses in Leviticus. Same historical context here.
1 Corinthians 6:9 is one of the other most prominent verses used in this discussion. In my earlier search for who first changed the wording of Leviticus, I ran across the fact that the 1946 English and German translations of the Bible, supposedly the first to use the word "Homosexual" in Scripture, did so based on the work of Martin Luther. In his studies, Luther found that the wording of this verse in the original Greek was actually "arsonokoitae" which actually speaks to the issue of "boy molesting". The following interview with a Methodist minister provides the details -- https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/
1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 are the other 2 verses primarily used against the Homosexuals. In this instance, we see that the word "effeminate" or "malakoi" had nothing to do with Homosexuality. Rather, it described weaknesses in both physicality and morals. This supports the premise that these and other references like them throughout the New Testament, refer to problems of promiscuity instead.
Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3 both speak of those who "lack natural affection". What does this mean, exactly?? The Greek word here is "astorgos". This is "a callous, inhuman lack of instinctive love for family members", according to the overview. Once again, nothing to do with Homosexuality. The connotation here is more of Narcissism than of anything else. Also, another commentary I've seen on this is that those people lacking in "natural affection" specifically referred to love from their mother. (I resemble this remark)
So now that we've covered the Biblical aspects and what the original language and historical contexts actually meant, we'll move on now to the scientific evidence that Homosexuality is nothing more than inborn personal preference, causing no more harm than one person's taste in food as opposed to another's.*
In that light, we'll begin here by looking at the Human Brain --
Those of us who grew up in "Church World", particularly in the '70s and '80s like me, were always taught that "being Gay is a choice that goes against God and nature", right?? And as we got into the '90s and started hearing about AIDS, this only fueled that flame, mostly due to ignorance and the truth that innocent babies were being born with it being entirely dismissed.* Of course, those of us intelligent enough to question our Religious upbringing in these ways knew enough to ask, "Why would anyone choose a lifestyle in which they knew would bring ridicule and possibly even physical abuse??" Sometime later, we started hearing theories that Homosexuals and Lesbians are like that as the result of childhood trauma.* Well, as we'll see here, that actually has some validity to it. (Although if that were all that's required, wouldn't more of us be that way??) So there has to be more to the story, right?? There is indeed...
Biology of the Homosexual Brain
Once again, I wasn't able to copy and paste the overview, but the gist of it proves that human brain structure and physiology absolutely do relate to Homosexuality. Here's the basic rundown --
Hypothalamus sizes among Homosexuals vs Heterosexuals differ significantly.
Amygdala and brain functions among Homosexuals and Lesbians share more emotional responses in common with the opposite genders.
Prenatal development in Gays and Lesbians figures significantly in terms of hormonal balances and the like. This proves chemical disposition in vitro to Homosexual tendencies. The truth of this serves to disprove a theory that one of my former pastors had. He cited Exodus 4:11, in which God is convincing Moses that he is capable of the assignment being given due to the fact that it is He who causes some people to be blind or deaf, therefore, Moses' speech impediment was no excuse to reject God's direction. According to this pastor, God gave people certain Disabilities in order for those people to overcome them and live decent lives. He then concluded that Homosexuality was a Disability to be overcome by prayer and determination. I feel like he was missing the point that people's deafness or blindness doesn't go away simply for the person's ability to live successfully. I have also come to realize that inherent differences such as color and size, along with Homosexuality are simply elements of human diversity. These have nothing to do with personalities or hearts towards God. They are just variety among God's creation, and equally deserving of love and respect. After all, Jesus' words in Matthew 22:34-40 tell us to love God and love others. He never said there were any exceptions. Further support for this comes from my personal experiences. Back in 2006, I asked my therapist for testing. The result was that I'm HFPDD. This stands for High Functioning Pervasive Developmental Disorder. In short, my brain defaults toward the literal rather than the allegorical. The High Functioning designation, however, means that I can understand some allegory and sarcasm*. The overall effect to my brain is that it takes me a bit longer to process things. This, along with a bit of comorbid ADD, puts me on the edge of the Autism Umbrella. Now, as we've come to understand, Autism is not a Disability. It simply takes a different approach to processing information. In "techie" terms, it's not a bug, it's a feature. I've heard the comparison related to Windows vs Linux. Neither one is better or worse. They just function differently to do the same jobs. Therefore, a person doesn't "have Autism", they ARE Autistic. Likewise, a person doesn't choose Homosexuality. They are born to it. The logic here then, is that denying it serves only to emotionally abuse that person, whether it be ourselves or others.
Hemisphere symmetry tends to be more perfect in Homosexual men while Lesbian women's brains are shown to be asymmetrical like those of Heterosexual men.
Pheromone responses of Homosexuals and Lesbians also reflect those of the opposite gender.
This article (found on page 14 or 15 of my search)* shows some of these things in greater detail -- https://chronicle.uchicago.edu/031120/sex-orientation.shtml
Homosexuality in Animals
In the process of proving that Homosexuality does not go against nature, we turn now to the Animal Kingdom as it relates to non-humans. Evidence shows that there are over 1,500 species in which Homosexual behaviors can be seen. Overview shows that among these, aside from dolphins, the most prevalent are actually sheep and giraffes. In sheep, 10% of males are known to prefer male sexual partners while giraffes show same-sex behaviors in both males and females at a far higher percentage than opposite sex activities. It also says that among penguins and dolphins in particular, these behaviors have been known to result in exclusive, life-long relationships. While only first observed and recorded by Aristotle (384-322 BC) when he watched pigeons, partridges, and quail, this proves that Homosexual behavior is not limited to humans, and therefore not against nature. Another early observation of Homosexuality among animals was Egyptian author Harapollo, who noticed it in hyenas. While it has also been suggested that these behaviors are the result of the Fall, there is no biological evidence to support this.
In the process of this article, it occurred to me to think about instances of hermaphrodites and neuters, not only in humans, but in animals. I found in my search, that the term "hermaphrodite" is no longer considered appropriate and the word "intersex" has taken its place. However, I don't feel this maintains the accuracy of the condition, as "true hermaphrodites" are inherently female. I've tried before, and now, to determine whether neuters are therefore inherently male. Nothing I had found before was conclusive on this, or it was too far beyond my HS Biology Class for me to absorb. This time, I found that those born without, or otherwise missing reproductive organs are not considered as being either male or female. To my mind, this condition better describes someone who is "intersex" than hermaphrodite. In any case, evidence clearly supports the presence of these anomalies in multiple species. There is even a Greek Myth featuring a character named Hermophroditos, showing that this was a known thing even in the Ancient World, along with born eunuchs, which may, in fact, have been natural eunuchs, now that I think of it. The fact that these occurrences are so rare in humans speaks to the point that the exception proves the rule. There are only meant to be two genders in any given species.
While humans with this condition cannot self-impregnate, it is listed among the advantages in animals. This is due to the fact that environmental factors may make it difficult to find opposite gender mates. These animals can thus guarantee reproduction and maintain populations of their respective species in specific areas. This goes to underscore the lack of choice in animals as opposed to humans.
Some of you around my age may remember the interview former talk show hostess Sally Jesse Raphael did back in the late '80s or early '90s with Toby. This is the person who was born with nothing but elimination processes below the belt. The following is an article explaining that Toby is neither male nor female according to genetic evidence.
While this shows evidence of a 3rd category of human being, the occurrence is so rare as to hardly qualify, in my opinion. This brings us to my final issue in defining Homosexuality and Lesbianism as sinful or not. You may have noticed that, aside from the above discussion on hermaphroditism and neuters, I have not mentioned Transgenders. This is partly covered by our previous information, however I didn't mention that there are 2 types of hermaphrodite in the animal kingdom. The one we are dealing with here is sequential. (the other being simultaneous) Most common among some fish and reptiles, we find that the clown fish represents protandry. This means that all clown fish are born male and live with a single dominant female. When she dies, the strongest male takes her place. Conversely, wrasses and parrotfish exhibit protogyny. This is where all are born female and the dominant one takes the place of the single male. So what's the problem with people who feel that they should switch, you may ask??
The important distinctions here lie in physical biology and environmental necessity. While those animals afforded this ability by God are able to switch genders do so specifically do it in response to social hierarchies and population maintenance, people only do it based on personal decisions based in misguided delusions. Now stay with me here, okay?? Let me show you the facts on this --
While the overview on this was too lengthy to bother trying to copy and paste, the basic information given is that suicidal thoughts and attempts are significantly higher among those who have undergone transition surgery than those who have not. At the same time, the following article underscores the premise that Transgender (or Gender Dysphoria) is
always accompanied by other pre-existing mental disorders. See for yourself --
This unequivocally proves that Transgender people, while still worthy of respect as human beings, are in fact, mentally disturbed. They don't need affirmation, they need psychological treatment and nothing more except prayer that they can accept themselves as God made them.
In closing, I wanted to look first at the history of Judaism as it relates to Homosexuality. While the Orthodox view maintains strict adherence to their understanding of the Ancient Hebrew in prohibiting Homosexuality* with a stringent persistence in the Biblical view of marriage being primarily for the purpose of procreation, they are slowly realizing a more open perspective may be needed. Conservative Synagogues and others embrace a fully accepting and affirmative stance. This actually just reminded me of something I was going to say earlier about the difference between love and tolerance. Once again, looking to what my pastors have said, "While love reaches out for the good of another and invites them in, tolerance says 'You do you, but stay over there.'." They are not the same.
Just a few more thoughts -- First of all, I wanted to share that one of my ex-boyfriends, Jeremy, has become friends over the last several years with a woman who is both a Christian and a Lesbian. She and her wife have been together for nearly 20 yrs. They go to Church regularly and have a very healthy relationship. She has told Jer that "If God wants me to stop, He'll let me know.". I'm thinking that if He hasn't yet, He's not going to. Similarly, before his father died a few years ago, he attended the church where his wife, Lynn, was an Associate Pastor. (I'm not sure if she still is.) Anyway, this a non-denominational, evangelical church. There was a Lesbian couple who started going there, and the general consensus was to leave it between them and God.
At the same time, there was a Lesbian who pastored a Congregational Church here in Concord, NH until it closed a few years ago due to an aging membership and lack of new members. I met her a couple of times through my parents who didn't attend the Church services in the morning, but enjoyed the Jazz Services held one Sunday afternoon a month. I went to one of those with them. At that time, both my parents and I were disappointed in the Guest Speaker as they were all about protesting at the State House against anti-LGBT legislation. Obviously, that was before I did my homework!!
Another thing that I have discovered recently in relation to Homosexuality and the Church is that there are actually a number of Gay Dioceses in the Catholic Church. (I was as surprised as you probably are!!)
Oh, and I almost forgot one more thing... I've also heard it suggested that everyone is technically bi-sexual. A quick search just now debunks this. The fact that we all fall within a range of charted sexuality in no way means that everyone is bi-sexual. While this may also be based on the idea that we are all female at conception, this is nothing more than misinformation. The fact that there is no structural difference between males and females during the first few weeks of gestation has led to this oversimplification of human anatomy and genetics.
So what happened to those aforementioned holes in the fabric of the concept of marriage?? They are sufficiently filled by the perfectly Biblical support of mutually exclusive, respectful relationships between consenting adults.*
Finally, while there are those who say that the LGBT crew's use of the rainbow is sacrilegious, I feel that the truths brought out in this article refute that. In fact, I would even go so far as to say the rainbow was used by God on purpose, knowing that it would be used later in promoting love among humans of all colors and preferences. (While this includes every person, it does not support the decisions of the psychologically delusional. That point falls outside sexual preference.)
I pray that all who read this come to a greater understanding of Biblical truth, not only in this area, but all aspects of Godly teaching.
-- God Bless!!
Footnotes:
While I mention a few times through this article about having 2 pastors, I technically have 3. The first 2 are both here in Concord, NH and are the Lead and Assistant Pastors, respectively, the other is at the UCC in Brattleboro, VT where I attend when visiting my boyfriend, assuming that I'm there on a Sunday, and available to it. They are an Open and Affirming Just Peace Church while my local "regular" one is Non-Dom covering a Conservative Baptist background.
As to defining sin and the condition of our hearts toward God, it's about our intentions more than the specific activity. For example, while some Christians don't feel that it's appropriate to celebrate Halloween due to some traditions in Paganism, others of us understand that we're allowed to have fun without it being connected to evil practices. Likewise, some Christians view Yoga as evil due to it's beginnings as a way to communicate with false gods or potentially demonic spirits. While this is a gross misunderstanding of the truth, the point lies in the fact that it's a healthy way to maintain focus and physical flexibility. It's the intention that matters. NOT the activity itself. Activity is objective, intention is subjective. With the obvious exceptions of theft, abuse, and murder, of course.
To clarify, Salvation of Grace refers to the idea that, "I can do whatever I want because all is forgiven.". This is a gross abuse of God's grace and an unbiblical approach to life in Christ. It's important to understand that we are Saved BY Grace, and not TO Grace.
Not saying that all my other pastors have been perfect by any means, just that none have exhibited this same behavior.
1 Thessalonians 5:22 tells us to "avoid all appearance of evil". I also have a brief story about this. One time, when my oldest, Carissa, didn't have a ride to Youth Camp, we asked if the pastor's son, who was one of the Leaders could take her. They refused, citing this verse. My thought was that no one outside the church would know the difference, and those IN the church would know the guy better than that. SMH...
Romans 14:13-23. Paul is admonishing the Roman Christians here not to engage in behaviors that would be offensive to their unbelieving Roman hosts, or to fellow Believers who may have had a specific problem, such as alcoholism. As I said earlier, activity is objective, personal issues are subjective.
While I am well aware that the Bible supports judgment of fellow Believers in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, our evidence above in reference to the definitions of sin severely limits this. Also to this point, I saw a post several years ago that caught me... It said, "Don't judge others because they sin differently than you." (Gulp!!)
Just because it's true that some animals are able to switch and some people have anomalies doesn't mean there are more than 2 genders, 3 at the outside. Which, technically equates to no gender, so there's that...
The term "echad" also supports the truth of the Trinity. See my other article for more on that.
For more on Biblical Marriage, see my article on Sex and the Single Christian.
While a quick search doesn't tell me implicitly, I feel the fact that the men of Sodom desiring to attack His angels was a major factor in God's decision to destroy them.
Fun fact: Did you know that married couples didn't actually start sleeping together until the late 1880s!!?? The reason given is that space was restricted due to smaller housing during the Industrial Revolution. Further information suggests that some didn't start sleeping together until the 1950s!! The suggestion was that it was unhealthy and disturbed sleep of the other person. (True, but worth it, imo)
While the Ethiopian Eunuch is often cited as the first Gentile conversion, there is evidence to support the idea that he was, in fact, a displaced Jew. Meanwhile, Jesus' encounter with the Woman at the Well was the first place we see Him speak specifically to a Gentile. It is also the first time He definitively identifies Himself as Messiah.
In speaking of Homosexuality as doing no more harm than a person's taste in food, some may say, "What about the breakdown of the Family??" What of it?? While I used to be as opposed to Gay Marriage for the same reasons some of you are, I have come to realize that a loving, stable environment is all that's required. There's no specific way that has to look. This goes to support the idea that barren women (and men), along with divorcees who are beyond child-bearing age are just as free to marry as those younger people who are able, and willing to procreate. (This also includes those with Disabilities and those who simply don't choose to have children.) More on this is also in my article on Sex and the Single Christian.
To the point that the whole AIDS thing being viewed as a specifically Gay issue, while totally ignoring the fact that babies were being born with it, primarily due to infected blood from transfusions, I actually know someone who thought this way. He said that was why he refused to purchase any more of Elton John's music, as it "supported Homosexuality". I tried to convince him otherwise, and also that the music itself had nothing to do with Homosexuality, nor did his lifestyle detract in any way from his amazing talent.
As to the idea of Homosexuality being the result of childhood trauma, one of my best friends back in the early '90s was Gay. (Although I never knew it at the time) If there's ANYONE who could support this premise, it would be him. His father murdered his mother, and he grew up with a cold, unloving step-mother. Conversely, I also know someone who had an extremely harsh upbringing and remains as straight as the proverbial arrow.
My personal ability to understand allegory depends on frame of reference and how closely I see the analogy as being related to the conversation. My capacity for distinguishing sarcasm or joking may depend on the facial expression of the person speaking. If I know them well enough, I can generally tell. If I don't, they may have to tell me.
You may have noticed in our time here, the lack of Scriptural evidence against Lesbianism. This is due to the fact that this was tied in with Temple Prostitution, and only later considered a problem by the Church. I feel certain that this was part of the reasons cited for changes to the original wording in Scripture.
Once again, more on the subject of Biblical marriage can be found in my article on Sex and the Single Christian.
Comments