Homosexuality in the Bible? – An alternative perspective

Preface: I am sharing this information to those who are interested in the topic of homosexuality in the Bible. This provides an alternate perspective to the mainstream viewpoint that homosexuality is undoubtedly a sin and that the Biblical text on the subject is plain and simple… Please read on if you are interested in the literal interpretations of Hebrew and Greek which offer a new perception of this controversial topic.  This is not a new “liberal” theology, but information that is provided to you just by intensively studying the Bible while taking into consideration the cultural and linguistic context of the time in which it was written. Note that this information encompasses years of research with references at the bottom of the page with special thanks to Daniel A. Helminak and Dr. Joseph A. Pearson.

CHRISTIANS: Stop and pray before you proceed!

If you are a Christian reading this material, ask God to give you the truth of His Word and do not simply rely on popular human interpretation. Pause now to pray for discernment to have the wisdom to know the difference between what you have always been taught by others and what is the true intention of God’s loving Word on your heart. I now pray for you, the reader, that you find new awareness and are able to accomplish the Will of God through love to all! It is written in the Word of God, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” (Proverbs 18:13). Therefore, I pray that you go forth with exploring these Scriptures before deciding to condemn. May YAHWEH (holy, holy, holy is His name above all!), the Creator who gives life to you and to me, bring new Biblical wisdom and blessings upon you in new and magnificent ways! I pray this in the name of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah), Amen!

“God has shown me that I should never call a person impure or unclean…What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” -Acts 10: 28, 15 * This post is updated regularly, so please return for new insights! (Last update: 07/08/2014)

*Simply click the symbol to return to this menu

TABLE OF CONTENTS †

“If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.” -Proverbs 18:13

This was originally a response to a letter that I received in 2008 that was packed with Bible verses that appear to condemn homosexuality. Here was my response to each verse along with many updates of further study.

After prayer, please read this introduction to prepare your heart and mind:

Going forward with this, we must find Biblical evidence in Scripture that demonstrates where the true condemnation is placed. Before we get into the specific verses in question, I ask you to first contemplate the general theme in all sin. We know from Romans 13:12 that “One who loves his neighbor will not harm him. Therefore, love is all that The Law demands.” It appears that all sin encompasses a lack of bestowing love which presents harm to self, others and/or God. So to flee from sin is to bestow love, as our Heavenly Father bestowed love to us by giving His only begotten Son to atone for our sins. Through this undeserved Grace out of Divine love, we accept His sacrifice and are forgiven believers and bestow love to God and others. How then, can love between two forgiven Christians (straight or gay) in a God-centered loving monogamous life-long union be a sin?

We must recognize that “the majority” are not always correct, as even the Jews believed that Gentiles (and others) were all cursed and not allowed to be in a relationship with God. But we can see in Scripture that the majority of God-believers were in major error! Under the Old Covenant, It was revealed to Isaiah that Gentile foreigners and even outcast eunuchs were blessed by God if they followed Him (Reference Isaiah 56:3-8.) But the law against Jew and Gentile association remained by the majority of God-believers. Then, under the New Covenant of Christ, it was revealed to Peter, “You know it’s forbidden for a Jewish man to associate with or visit a foreigner. But God has shown me that I must not call any person unholy or unclean…What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:28,15). Therefore, instead of believing that “the majority” of Christians must be right in the traditional view of condemning homosexuality, I encourage you to continue to explore this topic with an open mind and heart. Although the Word of God speaks little about homosexual acts and nothing of same-gender marriage (unless David and Jonathan’s “covenant” was in fact a marriage), this is not surprising, as homosexuals make up a very small portion of the population. The Bible also does not speak about hermaphrodites (those born with both male and female sexual organs.) Who are they allowed to marry? I am convicted that just as the Message came “first to the Jew, then to the Gentile,” the blueprint for marriage (as a God-centered monogamous life-long covenant) came “first to the heterosexual (majority), then to the homosexual (minority.)

So now one must ask, how can we recognize a false teacher or false doctrine? Jesus warns us, “by their fruits you shall recognize them.” (Matthew 7:16) So now let me ask you, which bears more good Spiritual fruit? To condemn an entire group of potential followers to hell for their love? Or to love them and multiply fruitfulness by growing the body of believers in Christ?

So now it should be known that the word “homosexuality” was not around in Biblical times. The word “homosexual” was first printed in a book in 1869, and then placed in the Bible in 1946. The original Greek in the Bible that has now been adopted as meaning homosexual is translated from “arsen, koites” which literally means “man, bed.” This is very vague and could mean a number of things (male prostitution, rape etc.) Note that the Apostle Paul made up the term arsenokoites and provided no definition. It is only listed twice in the entire Bible, and used only 76 times in non-Biblical Greek writings within 2,000 years of Greek history, many times in a way that would be impossible to mean homosexual (“Some do it with their own mothers and foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit arsenokoites with their wives!” -John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, 575 AD). For a list of references to arsenokoites in Greek literature, visit http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html. Previous to our more modern translation of “homosexual offenders,” arsenokoites was translated in many different ways in the Bible. Read below for clarification.

SPECIAL NOTE: After reviewing the information presented, please read the “Final Thoughts, Warnings and Prayer” section.

Christian dividerSIN OF SODOM

Genesis 19:1-11 “Two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom…”We will spend the night in the square,” they said. But he (Lot) urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house….Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” … “I beg of you my brothers, do not act so wickedly….Do nothing to these men, as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they replied, “Stand back! This fellow came here as an alien (Lot was not a born native of Sodom), and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you then with them.”

Christians assume that because these men wanted to have sex with the others who accompanied Lot in his home, that this means that homosexuality is a sin. First of all, these were ANGELS that were in Lot’s house, not men (wouldn’t you assume that men having intercourse with heavenly beings would be sinful?) Secondly, they wanted to RAPE them against their will. It was common in Biblical times for men to rape other foreigner men who came into their city as a sign of power (similar to prison rape.) I don’t know about you, but I have yet to hear a story of  a group of gay men in San Fransisco surrounding a visitors’ house to gang rape them. Clearly this is not talking specifically about all gay and lesbian people, but the attempted gang rape of strangers.

From a historical perspective, Sodom  had made rules out of greed not to take in strangers because they felt that they would compromise their wealth. They saw strangers who came into the land to lodge as freeloaders. The punishment for such a crime of allowing strangers into your home and taking your resources was that of violence as a sign of power, and in this case gang rape. When Lot tried defending the angels, the Sodomites replied “Now we will deal with you (Lot) worse than them (the angels)!” Clearly, “dealing worse” with Lot meant a stricter punishment of violence (not friendly gay sex), which may not only have been gang rape, but death. Lot was struck with a dilemma, let the angels be raped or be possibly raped and killed himself. He offered his virgin daughters as an alternative, but thankfully the angels struck the Sodomites blind and this did not occur. In a similar story in Judges 19, strangers come under the shelter of a residents roof in the inhospitable land of Gibeah. These men also wanted to rape the male visitor, but his concubine was offered instead and was taken as an alternative punishment. (Note that if the men of the city were gay and just wanted to have a good time because they found the visitors attractive, they would not have taken a woman instead.) After gang raping her all night, she was found dead the next morning. (For more on this, click here.) What this story reveals is the intentions of these cities residents to show power and punishment through sexual violence. This does not describe anything close to modern-day loving committed same-sex relationships.

Note that the sins of Sodom have been made clear in Ezekiel 16:49 and do not mention any acts of homosexuality: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” The last visible sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. The hospitality of residents in cities was incredibly important to spreading God’s word because many were like our common day missionaries and needed a place to lodge. Jesus instructed his disciples, “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. If people do not welcome you, leave their town and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” (Luke 9:2-6). It has been made clear in the Bible that residents are to accept in strangers with hospitality for this very reason. There were certain cities like Sodom which were known for their inhospitality in which spreaders of God’s word and the Gospel were fearful of visiting due to the known violence that could come upon them as mentioned above. Hospitality to others is interlinked with what Jesus claimed as one of the most important commandments to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12: 28-32), do to others as you would have them do to you and love your enemies (Luke 6:31-35). Additionally, the Biblical law of hospitality was very strict in Biblical times. Examples include Hebrews 13:2 that states “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.” Alike is Leviticus 19:34 which states “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself.” One more verse out of many which may be the most compelling is Hebrews 11:31: “By faith Rahab the prostitute was not put to death with those who had gone against God’s orders, because she had taken into her house in peace those sent to see the land.” This verse in particular shows that a prostitute was spared by God simply due to her hospitality of strangers. It was clear that the Sodomites did not treat outsiders with hospitality of any kind and acted in dominant perverse ways to their visitors.

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when ‘the sons of God’ (angels) went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.” -Genesis 6:4

Also, Jude 1:7 speaks of those in Sodom going after “strange flesh” (Greek words: sarkos heteras) which is equated to “going after one not of the same nature or class.” It is obvious that two people of identical gender would be of the same nature or class even more than a male and female. Humans are in a different nature and class to angels just as we are in a different class to animals. Therefore, “strange flesh” is referring to angel and human relations and/or inner-species sex, not gay/lesbian sex.

    NEW: Also read https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/aramaic-and-hebrew-letters-reveal-hidden-meaning-in-the-bible-including-the-words-for-god-jesus-peace-sin-homosexuality-etc/ which explores the Hebrew word meaning for “Sodom” which supports this alternate translation. This new article also provides further proof about the other “clobber passages” as well as shocking hidden meaning in the Hebrew and Aramaic language which demonstrates the Bible’s Divine nature! For two more key facts that prove that Sodom was not destroyed due to homosexuality, visit, https://moanti.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/sodom/

Christian dividerLEVITICUS ABOMINATIONS

Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with (shakab-ושכב) mankind as (you lie) with (mishkab-משכב) womankind; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with (shakab-ושכב) a male as those who lie with (mishkab-משכב) a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”

Alternate View One: Language Context

The reason confusion has come into these verses as only meaning “men having sex with other men” is due to the fact that there are multiple Hebrew words that are all translated in English “to lie with” that can mean different things. First, the Hebrew word “shakab” (שכב) which is translated in English “to lie with” has many definitions, (to rest, to sleep, to relax, to lie down in death, to bury, to make one lie down) not all with a sexual nature. Second, other verses in Leviticus with sexual meaning translated “to lie with” use another word, “shekobeth” (שכבתך), which literally and only means “sexual intercourse” or “copulation.” Shekobeth is used for such things as adultery (Leviticus 18:20) and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). It is interesting that the word shekobeth was not used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 if it indeed meant that man should not have sex with another man. Third, the word mishkab (משכב) translated in these verses as a comparison to “as with” or “like as” one lies with a woman, yet the word itself is a noun meaning bed, couch or resting place and is stated 46 times in 44 verses.

So what else could shakab mean since it seems to have so many definitions? It is easy to learn the sexual context of the word since it can be found 213 times in 194 verses in the Bible. Referring back to the definitions, many verses (101) used shakab to simply “lie down to sleep.” A good portion (51) of the verses used shakab as “to lie down in death.” There are 52 incidences in which shakab is used in a sexual context, mainly “to make one lie down,” which by modern definition would be RAPE. The other verses out of these 52 are sexual acts characterized by coercion and/or a deceptive act to sexually lure committed or married person away from their mate. So the context of shakab is very specific to rape, coerced sex or sex masked in some type of adulterous deception and is never used as just common intercourse (unless Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are the only exceptions that exist in the entire language.) Here are some examples:

“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie (shakab) with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.” -Genesis 19:32 (The daughters of Lot get him drunk and rape their father to have children.)

When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (shakab). -Genesis 34:2 (Shechem rapes Dinah.)

“That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie (shakab) with me, and I cried with a loud voice.” Genesis 39:14 (A woman falsely accuses Joseph of raping her.)

“However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay (shakab) with her.” 2 Samuel 13:4 (Amnon rapes his sister Tamar.)

“For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled , and the women ravished (shakab)…” Zechariah 14:2 (Speaking of the rapes of women in opposing cities.)

“…for in her youth they lay with her (shakab), and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.”Ezekiel 23:8

“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed (engaged/unmarried) unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie (shakab) with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (Sexual coercion of an engaged woman.)

Click here for a FULL LIST OF VERSES THAT CONTAIN “SHAKAB” IN A SEXUAL CONTEXT.

Therefore, going back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the context of what we see in sexual incidences of the word shakab-שכב, it is likely that these verses could literally mean that a man should not rape or force sex upon another man. But this is still stretching it since the original translation of the verse might imply a heterosexual act of some sort, but I will get to that later.

Another extremely important point is that the English translations have replaced some words with “filler words” to help the text make sense, but their “fillers” are completely misleading. When we see “You shall not lie with mankind AS WITH womankind” or “you shall not lie with a man LIKE AS a woman,” the “as with” and “like as” are filler words (i.e. completely absent from the original text.) These words exist in the Hebrew language to use a comparison, but they are not used in the verses in Leviticus. Due to this, the translators have taking the liberty to make up their own meaning by comparing lying with a man with as with a woman. So when we see the Hebrew word mishkab-משכב, the meaning is simply “bed” or “lying place,” NOT “like as” or “as with.” Here is a comparison between the common translation and the alternate translation. Please note that Hebrew is read from right to left:
lev18_commonimage

Let it be noted that the alternate translation of nearly all words is based on the most common Biblical Hebrew translation of the word, except shakab which is based solely on the contextual definition used within all the verses of the Bible. So as you can see, the meaning of the literal translation would be “Against man, no lie bed woman/wife, abomination it (or he/she.)” knowing that the word for “lie” has a context of rape, coerced sex, or deceptive luring of someone else’s mate, it could very well be that the verse is condemning men from sleeping with another man’s wife. When other verses state not to commit adultery AGAINST ones spouse, this could be a verse about an unmarried man who would not be committing adultery against his own spouse, but rather committing an act against another man who is the husband of the wife he is sleeping with. Thus it would be “against any man, do not lie in the bed of his wife.” This would also make sense in Leviticus 20:13 that the two shall be put to death, as the two would be the unmarried man with the married woman. But this is just one option. If it is talking about a homosexual act, it could likely be speaking against a man sleeping with a married man who holds a marriage bed with his wife, as the 2 different words for “man” in Leviticus 20:13 imply that one is of a higher status. The first man mentioned is “ish” and the second, which one is lying “against,” is zakar. Zakar (Strong #2142) also means “one to be remembered,” and many times used contextually as “remember the covenant.” So if an ish is lying with or against a zakar, it might mean that a man is lying with a man in a marriage covenant or is lying with his wife, which would be an act against a fellow married man. In the next section I will be going into the context of Leviticus 18 and 20 which suggests that it might just be condemning homosexual acts due to its idolteous connections. If this is the case, than we could expect that shakab would be defined as coerced sex which I will explain shortly.

Therefore, these verses do not definitively mean that men should not be in a committed sexual relationship with a man like they are with a woman, as the multiple meanings of language produces a genuine possibility of a different translation. If you have doubts, please do your own study into the Hebrew meaning of words and look up every verse in context in the interlinear Bible at   http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/ But please also note that some identical Hebrew words have different Strong numbers, so one should thoroughly investigate by searching out each word to see all of their possible meanings.

(Referenced from Ebn Maryam and “Leviticus Abominations Explained” with further personal study for accuracy.)

Side Note: One must take into consideration that there is one instance out of these 52 verses using shakab that, at first glance, appears to speak of sex without some type of force, deception, or unwanted coercion. However, we can see that the context of shakab (to lie with) in the verse is not descriptive of sex because what makes the verse sexual is the use of shekobeth (only meaning sexual intercourse): “The woman also with whom man shall lie with (shakab) seed of copulation (shekobeth), they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.” Leviticus 15:18 Notice that shakab is used in this verse as literally meaning “lying down” and not straightforward sex since shekobeth takes this term in the use of saying “copulation.” If shakab were to mean sex in this verse, it seems repetitive to repeat the same word less than 2 words later. Taking from the context of earlier verses in this chapter that speak of the need to wash due to being unclean, it appears that this verse is stating that the woman and the man that lie down with semen from copulation are required to clean themselves. Previous verses speak only to the man washing and the need to wash all garments and skin after an emission of sperm (Leviticus 15: 16-17). The 18th verse simply commands also the woman to wash to be clean. Therefore at the very least, 51 incidences of shakab that are used in a sexual nature appear to be rape, deceptive, or coerced sexual situations, not normal loving sexual intercourse between two committed adults.

Alternate View Two: Verse and Historical Context

Note that alternate view two is interpreted differently from view one, which gives further evidence that these verses are not clear-cut to the reader and could mean multiple things, and not just simply condemning homosexuality. Although this is different, it is not mutually exclusive and could still coincide in regard to shakab (שכב) meaning coerced sex. In this view historically described by some commentators dating back at least to the first century, one must look at more than just the verse of Leviticus 18:22 by itself and consider what was happening at the time that Leviticus was written. Although it is long, please read the entire chapter of Leviticus 18 and notice that it is written in sections which are specific to certain acts. I will color code this for clarification:

Leviticus 18 (KJV)

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. 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. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to be consecrated to the idol Molech, nor defile the name of thy God. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled; That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

So first we have a greeting, then specific acts to being with people near of kin from verses 6-20, then we have acts that are specific to the Idol worship of Molech in verses 21-24. The last verses 25-30 describes the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan which committed these customs before the Israelites came into the land.

Molech was the fertility god that many people at the time of Leviticus were following in Canaan and abroad instead of God. When you read the entire chapter of Leviticus 18, you will see previous to the 19th verse, it speaks of all sexual prohibitions specific to those too close to your kin. Then we switch gears in verse 19 and mention “giving seed to Molech.” Afterwards are a list of things that were commonly associated with idolatry in shrine rituals to praise Molech, which included men giving their sperm as a sacrifice to Molech by that of bestiality and an emission through the male shrine prostitutes. This was an extremely common and well-known practice among worshipers of Molech and other false gods in idol worship. Remember that male prostitutes who have sex with men are not representative of all gays and lesbians, just as heterosexual woman prostitutes do not include all heterosexuals.  Also note an alternative translation of Leviticus 18:21 states, “You shall not offer your children (instead of ‘seed’) as sacrifice to Molech.” This is even more curious because all of chapter 18 speaks of sexual acts up until this verse which (in this translation) is not sexual, and then following are sexual things associated with idol worship of Molech. Looking closer at the Hebrew translation shows that the word zera (זָ֫רַע) used for “seed” or “children” also means semen, seminal and/or intercourse. The Hebrew word before this for “offer” is nathan (נָתַן) which also means “perform.” With this said, an actual alternate translation of the verse could be “you shall not perform intercourse as sacrifice to Molech” or “you shall not offer your semen as sacrifice to Molech.” Although Molech may have been given children, those without children would be required to give semen, as it was seen as a sacrifice of life. Thus, following the general theme of Leviticus 18, a sexual act would seem to be more accurate. This appears to show that Leviticus 18:22 is not speaking to the general audience, but to those involved in these practices which were not only sexually immoral, but idolatrous before the Lord. So as mentioned in th previous section, this could suggest that the Hebrew word shakab (שכב) is being used as coerced sex, in that the idol worshiping males were coerced to comit homosexual acts in order to give their semen as am idol sacrifice.

Likewise, the 20th chapter of Leviticus (which includes 20:13) begins with a strong warning about Molech and lists all of the punishments of those who participate in the forbidden sexual practices in Moses’ law, including those associated with idolatry. The King James Version states, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed (semen) unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed (semen) unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed (semen) unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.” The New International Version states, “The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molech is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the members of the community close their eyes when that man sacrifices one of his children to Molech and if they fail to put him to death, I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.” Leviticus 20:1-5.  (NIV)

(Referenced from “Christianity and Homosexuality {Reconciled},”  Joseph Adam Pearson, Ph.D., President of Christ Evangelical Bible Institute.)

We can learn a lot from the last line of this verse: “with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech” (Leviticus 20:5). This reveals how the people used sex and prostitution within their idol worship. Other verses give similar proof. Leviticus 17:7 states, “They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves.” Also in Judge 2:17, “Yet they would not listen to their judges but prostituted themselves to other gods and worshiped them.”

Note that worship of Molech was so detested that the land upon which the main shrine sat was desecrated and later used as the city trash dump. There, trash would burn night and day. The former shrine is better known as “Gehenna” but is also referred to as “Molech Valley.” This place has been compared to Hell , even by Jesus in the Gospels.

For further Scriptural support of this translation, read how commands in Deuteronomy and 1 Kings appear to directly reference Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as Shrine Prostitution, not homosexuality: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/deuteronomy_and_1_kings/

Lastly, it must be mentioned that the Bible was not originally divided into chapters and verses. Chapters were made and changed through the years since 1240 to 1551. The Bible was then divided into verses in 1555 by a typographer, Robert Estienne, who wrote the Latin Vulgate. It was reported that he completed this task while traveling from Paris to Lyons France on horseback. This comes into scrutiny that a single man inserted verses into the Bible without the divine inspiration found of its original authors, hence the context of many writings have been lost. When we separate the Books of the Bible into small subcategories, it leaves room for taking things out of context. If Leviticus chapter 18 had been made into a new chapter at verse 19 (speaking of Molech), or if verses 19-24 had been made into one verse rather than six, than many readers would be able to see that the following verse were speaking specifically of sexual acts within idol worship.  The Bible must be read as a whole to be properly understood, not by simply picking and choosing specific verses out of context and assume meaning. This would be similar to taking half of a quote out of any modern book and assuming the meaning of the entire story.

Alternate View Three: Possible Alteration in Design

If you’re still uncertain of what you have just read, consider this. At the time of Leviticus, the world of the Jews was sparsely populated and so if it is speaking against male to male sexual acts, it was a way to discourage the Jews of the day from failing to procreate. Even masturbation at this time was considered worthy of death because “spilling your seed” was seen as a waste of a potential life (Genesis 38: 6-9). Obviously in present day we do not have a population problem. If anything, we are becoming overpopulated. Remember that in Genesis, God allowed incest. After a while, He altered the design because more people were on the earth. This could be the same with homosexual sex and the lack of procreation. In today’s time, many gay couples have adopted unwanted children and so they do still serve a purpose in child rearing.

There are many instances where the coming of Jesus altered the laws of the Old Covenant. Before Jesus, no one with a physical blemish (including a broken hand/foot, dwarf, hunchback, blind, eunuchs, etc. -Leviticus 21: 17-23) could give offerings or approach the alter of God. These individuals were cast out among people, but after Christ, they are sanctified. Remember that even Jesus broke certain laws of Moses because Jesus is the higher authority. It displays a preview of the freedom from the law to come after His death on the cross. It can be observed that Jesus broke the Sabbath laws by healing in Mark 3-6, Matthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11. He also changed the law in this example: In the old law of Moses it states, “Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner; fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.” (Leviticus 24:19-20.) But Jesus, the higher authority, says just the opposite: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:38-39.)  Also pertinent is when Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:43-45). Additionally, He showed mercy from some  punishments that were instructed by the law of Moses: The Pharisees tested Him and said “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women” (John 8:4-5) and Jesus replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7). You can read further in Matthew 5:21-45 on your own to see where Jesus gives many examples of “Moses said one thing, but I say another.” Please do not misunderstand my words, as this is not to say that Jesus has sinned by breaking, altering, or changing the laws, but that His perfect authority is higher than the laws set forth by Moses. Jesus came to give us freedom through grace from the curse of the law which made us all condemned before the shedding of His blood as the ultimate and only needed sacrifice for sins. For a deeper understanding, please also read the commentary at the bottom of this page entitled “we are not under the old covenant.”

Christian dividerTHOSE WHO WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakos), nor homosexuals (arsenokoites), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

This is another instance where the church in 1946 decided to put the word “homosexuals” into the verse (first into the Revised Standard Version), when it is actually several words that they brought together as one. The original Greek was “oute (nor) malakos oute (nor) arsenokoites.” The literal meanings which were condensed into the word homosexuality were “soft” (malakos) and the separate words “man, beds” (arsenokoites). Ironically, the New Revised Standard Version (makers of the Revised Standard Version) who started this trend of using “homosexuals,” recanted in their newer version in 1996, changing it back to its original translation which was “male prostitutes.”

The true meaning of malakos

For 1,900 years, malakos and arsenokoites were not translated as “homosexuals.” The scripture cannot mean now what it did not mean then. So what exactly do these words mean? That is up to interpretation, which are many. Malakos is used in the New Testament in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 by Jesus to describe “soft” clothing. It is used only one other time in 1 Corinthians 1:9, and the very first English translation (Wycliffe – 1380) uses the phrase “lechers against kind” which describes a person who has an excessive indulgence in sexual activity. This does not describe all homosexuals, neither heterosexuals. The trail of translations gets more confusing with the next translation (Tyndale 1525) that changes malakos into “weaklings” which describes a person of weak or of “soft” stature, either mentally or physically. If it is speaking as mentally weak or soft, it may be talking about those who are passive in action to God’s plan or lazy people. If physically weak or soft, it could describe not a literally “out of shape” person, but one that has prepubescent characteristics. Because God does not seem to judge people on their physical attributes but their heart, it would seem that this physical description would be accompanied by an immoral action.

Throughout history, malakos has changed its meaning from “soft” to “lechers” to “weaklings” to “effeminate” (King James-1611), to  “any who are guilty of an unnatural crime” (Weymouth – 1903), to “catamites”-boys who have sex with men, i.e child molestation (Moffat – 1913), to “Sodomites” (New American – 1941), to “homosexual offenders” (Revised Standard Version – 1946), to “those who participate in homosexuality” (Amplified – 1958), to “boy prostitutes” (New American Bible – 1970), to “male prostitutes” (NIV – 1973), to “abusers” (Green’s Interlinear – 1986), to “men kept for unnatural purposes” (JW-NWT – 1984), to “male prostitutes” (New Revised Standard Version – 1996) to “one who is less than a man” (Bible In Basic English – 1994), to “those who use and abuse each other” (The Message – 2002), etc. Now many translations have chosen to state “homosexual offenders” or “gays and lesbians” in its place. (Referenced from http://www.gaychristian101.com)

As you can see, there are so many translations for malakos that it makes it nearly impossible to know what it means, especially since it is only seen 3 times in the entire Bible. Two out of three times, we know that it simply means “soft.” In those two verses spoken from Jesus, they have not changed through time, therefore the original definition is someone who is “soft” in 1 Corinthians 1:9. If in a mental sense, passive in action to God’s plan or lazy person may be a better fit. If in a physical sense, then “effeminate” may not be too off course. Remember that not all gay males are effeminate (nor lesbians), but all prepubescent boys are “soft” and could be seen as effeminate. Because an immoral action must be accompanied with this descriptor, it could likely be discussing boy prostitution (child molestation) and possibly homosexual male prostitution since this was common in Biblical times, especially in the shrines. Going back to the first English translation, “lechers” do describe those who commit promiscuous sex, but they do not describe all people. To infer that the meaning of malakos is only “homosexuals” seems to be downright irresponsible since this word has been changed to so many different words over time. So what is the true meaning of malakos? When relying on context, other than “soft,” we really do not know.

The true meaning of arsenokoites

Like malakos, arsenokoites is shrouded in mystery. The term was coined by the Apostle Paul and is only mentioned 2 times in the Bible. The original words are compounded meaning “man (arsen), bed (koitai).” Many theologians argue that arsenokoites clearly means homosexual because “the words are taken directly from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13!” What they wont tell you or have failed to realize is that the word-pair “arsen” and “koitai” is found 37 other times in the Greek Old Testament without any possibility of meaning gay sex. Due to this, their argument is invalid.

Looking at the cultural background of the time, male shrine prostitutes who had sex with other males were very common and could be the meaning of this word. Because arsenokoites has the “man” as singular and “beds” as plural, it could very well mean “a man in many beds,” i.e. male prostitute. The first English translation of arsenokoites in the Wycliffe Version (1380) states “they that do lechery with men.” Like malakos that described “lechers against kind,” those that do “lechery with men” could describe people who are excessively sexual and promiscuous, which does not describe all homosexual or heterosexual men. In the 15th and 16th centuries, arsenokoites was widely accepted as a prohibition against masturbation because arsen is singular for “man,” not plural for “men” which would have been arsesin or arsenes (arsesinokoites/arsenesokoites). So if there is sexual meaning, then it implies one man. The King James Version (1611) changed arsenokoites to “abusers of themselves with mankind” which changed to “sexual perverts” and “sodomites” in the Revised Standard Version (1946), and then into “homosexual offenders” in the New International Version (1973). The Contemporary English Version and Common English Bible translation has decided to add even more to this by saying “those who behave like a homosexual” and “both participants in same-sex intercourse.”

When looking at other non-Biblical Greek documents that have since used the word, it has been mentioned 76 times without definition. When looking at the context, some seem to have no possible meaning of homosexuality. As mentioned earlier, the Greek manuscripts of Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, writes “Some do it with their own mothers and foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit arsenokoites with their wives!” (575 AD) This just makes the meaning that much more confusing, although it is clear that if a husband can commit arsenokoites with a wife, mother, foster sister, and goddaughters, it clearly is not speaking of having same-sex intercourse. (Referenced from Arsenokoites- What is the Historical Meaning of this Rare Greek Word? (2006) http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html )

New Insight into the Aramaic equivalent to Arsenokoites and Malakos

Although our New Testament is in Greek, it would not be unlikely that Paul knew Aramaic (the language of Jesus.) Some even believe that Paul spoke Aramaic and had his letters translated into Greek, as many unique Aramaic idioms and concepts are found throughout his writings. If this was the case, it would explain why Paul created so many Greek terms, as there may not have been a proper Greek way to express his Aramaic words fully. Even if this is not the case, the Aramaic word equivalent to arsenokoites (shach-bay am dich-re – שכבי עם דכרא) still provides a symbolic connection to shrine prostitution. Likewise, the Aramaic equivalent to malakos (m’khab-le – מחבלא) supports the link between children kept as slave prostitutes. Due to the in-depth nature of this translation, for a full explanation of these words and others in the Aramaic and Hebrew language, please  read https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/aramaic-and-hebrew-letters-reveal-hidden-meaning-in-the-bible-including-the-words-for-god-jesus-peace-sin-homosexuality-etc/

Corinthians in context

When reading the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 6, a few interesting things stand out which makes the meaning of this verse more obvious. First, verses 1-8 instructs that a Christian believer or saint (Greek word, hagios) that has a legal dispute among another Christian believer (hagios) should present the lawsuit to a court of other Christian believers (hagios). It instructs that Christian believers (hagios) should not present the lawsuit to a court of unrighteous (adikos) nonbelievers. In verses 9-10 it says “Or do you not know that the unrighteous (adikos) shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” After the vice list of those who fall under the category of adikos, it says “But this is what you were,” (before belief in Christ as adikos, you were condemned for these acts). Now as a believer or saint (hagios), “you were washed, you were sanctified (made righteous; freed from the punishment of sin; purified; renewed), you were justified in the name of Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit (life-giving Spirit) of our God.” Therefore, before belief in Christ, you were adikos (unrightious.) From the moment you became saved by Christ, you were made righteous and are a hagios (Christian believer/saint). The wording suggests that the dominant power of Christ’s sanctification cancels out our unrighteousness as flawed human beings. You cannot be both righteous and unrighteous at the same time when you are covered completely by the blood of Jesus. It would be impossible to be both a believer and a nonbeliever simultaneously! Therefore, once a Christian, you have been transformed from adikos to hagios as a gift of grace from God! (Read 1 Corinthians 1:30 and Romans 3:22-24 which describes how we are cleansed from our human flaws in the eyes of God and made righteous as believers in Christ.)

Christian dividerTHOSE FOR WHICH THE LAW OF MOSES WAS CREATED

1 Timothy 1:9-11, “law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals (arsenokoites) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching”

Please read the above commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 about arsenokoites which is also relevant to this verse. Aside from translation issues, this “vise list” identifies sinners for which the Law of Moses was created in order that there would be a need for a Savior through Christ Jesus. Reading the verses previous to 9-10 in context, we see that the Apostle Paul was actually writing to Timothy about the people of the land using the Law incorrectly and not focusing on the most important aspect, which is love. Paul writes, “When I left for Macedonia, I urged you to stay there in Ephesus and stop those whose teaching is contrary to the truth. Don’t let them waste their time in endless discussion of myths and spiritual pedigrees. These things only lead to meaningless speculations,which don’t help people live a life of faith in God.The purpose of my instruction is that all believers would be filled with love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and genuine faith. But some people have missed this whole point. They have turned away from these things and spend their time in meaningless discussions. They want to be known as teachers of the law of Moses, but they don’t know what they are talking about, even though they speak so confidently. We know that the law is good when used correctly. For the law was not intended for righteous people. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious…” (1 Timothy 1:3-9)

Notice that Paul speaks of those that have turned away from spreading the overall message of Christianity, which is to practice and promote love and faith. Furthermore, he mentions that ultra-focusing on the law and acting as an expert without proper knowledge does not help spread faith and truth of God’s love. He notes that “the law is good when used correctly” which infers that these individuals were misusing the law due to their lack of knowledge. It is ironic because many in our modern times have turned away from focusing on the love of God and have focused their attention on picking out these passages that appear to condemn gay and lesbian people without a thoughtful study. My intention of bringing additional  knowledge to these Bible verses is to help Christians (who focus on condemning rather than loving) escape this destructive mindset, henceforth bringing everyone together in God’s love which is the ultimate purpose.

Lastly, remember that those who are both gay/lesbian and Christian do not fall under the category of “lawless and rebellious” because they are made righteous through Christs’ blood! Acts 10:15 teaches us, ” What God has made clean you must not call unholy.” As mentioned above, as Christian believers (hagios) we are no longer unrighteous (adikos)! It is written, “But God has given you a place in Christ Jesus, through whom God has given us wisdom and righteousness and salvation, and made us holy.” (1 Corinthians 1:30). “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:22-24).

Christian dividerROMANS

Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

The author Paul makes the meaning of this verse clear when reading it in context. First we must look at the verses before Romans 1:26 which clearly show that these particular people who were engaging in “unnatural behavior” had turned away from God and worshiped idols just as those in the Old Testament in Leviticus had followed Molech as described in “Alternate View Two” above. Romans 1:22-25 states,Professing to be wise, they (idol worshipers) were made fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles. Wherefore also God did give them (idol worshipers) up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonor their (idol worshipers’) bodies among themselves; who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honor and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.”

*Note that this is speaking of a specific group of idol worshipers that were performing homosexual sex acts in rituals, NOT all homosexuals as a whole.

Secondly, note that these individuals “exchanged their natural function” or “abandoned their natural function.” The words “exchange” (Greek- Metallasso– “to change”) and “abandon” (Greek- aphiemi– “to give up”)  may demonstrate that they previously had their own personal natural attraction towards the opposite sex, but went against their own natural feelings to engage in things against their innate feelings. This would indicate a choice to engage in new pursuits of lustful sexual exploration (for the sake of idol worship), and not those who have always experienced romantic love and attraction towards the same-sex.

Furthermore, old translations make it clear that this verse does not speak of lesbianism in any way. Some newer translations say “women with women” which is just textually inaccurate. All it states pertaining to woman is: “for even their woman did change their natural function for that which is unnatural.” Not only was it common for male shrine prostitutes to be the receiver of male seed for the idols, but it was also common for the women to be a vessel for these idol worshiping men. They exchanged their natural function (male/female intercourse) for that which is unnatural (male/female anal intercourse.) Likewise, the men did the same (anal intercourse) with each other, all for the sake of idol worship. Also note that they were inflamed with lust for one another, which does not describe committed love. Therefore, Romans does not condemn gay and lesbian people individually or gay and lesbian people in loving committed lifelong partnerships.

Lastly, within Romans 1:22 they speak of “degrading passions.” The word “passion” in this specific verse comes from the Greek word pathos which means “acalamity, mishap, affliction, a feeling which the mind suffers.” This word is more similar to the context of “the passion” in which Christ suffered on the cross, not passion as we see it today (i. e- not a feeling of desire or love or sexual attraction). Therefore, it is not saying that sex between two adults of the same gender is degrading, but that they experienced degrading afflictions. In addition, it must be noted that the Greek word Eros (romantic love) is NOT used within this verse or any other passages that appear to condemn homosexuality. Due to this notation, romantic love between the same gender is nowhere found in the Bible as sinful. With this knowledge, it seems that the book of Romans speaks against members of the same sex engaging in temple idol worship which often involved sexual rituals.

If you read the entire book of Romans, it is not a book of condemnation, but a book of grace and love. It says that these sins were “what you were,” because we are no longer “under the law.” This does not mean that no one sins after accepting Christ, but that Jesus died for our sins so that we may be saved since the commandments of the Old Testament were unable to be perfectly followed by man (everyone falls short). It also says if you live under the law you will die under the law (only living by commandments and not saved by Jesus) and that if you judge another you are judging yourself and will be condemned. Obeying God’s commandments is an expression of love and obedience to Him, not the means to get to Heaven. If it were, no one would be able to succeed because we all make mistakes. Jesus paid the price for our sins. He is like a good lawyer that goes in front of the judge (God) and gets us out of our criminal case (our sinful nature). We don’t deserve it; he just gives it to us for free if we believe because of His love for us.

To take a personal inventory for yourself to see if you are guilty of the sins in Romans, please visit my new post about Romans and scroll down to the bottom of the page to answer the questions https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/is-homosexuality-a-sin-in-romans-1/Many have equated HIV/AIDS as “the due penalty for their error” in Romans, assuming that this statement is prophesying the killer virus as a punishment for gays. When we Biblically break down each word and look in context, we can see the true meaning behind this powerful statement that applies to all who turn their back on God. I highly encourage you to read about this further:  https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/what-is-the-due-penalty-for-their-error-in-romans/.

Christian dividerJESUS’ VIEW ON MARRIAGE AND ETERNAL IMPORTANCE

Matthew 19:4-6, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

First of all, look at the question that was asked previously in Matthew 19:3- Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” This is a question about permitted grounds for divorce, not a commandment that all heterosexuals must marry and have children. To say this is to say that all men who do not reproduce are sinful. What about the infertal man? Is he sinning against God? “Let not man put asunder” means that men should not set their wife aside. This appears to be an instruction by Christ to value commitment in marriage, not a prohibition against same-sex love and relationships. In fact, there is no written documentation within the entire Bible where Jesus mentioned homosexuality as a sinful act.

If you read on in this same chapter, Jesus actually states that there are some people for which marriage between male and female are not relevant. Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:11-12). A eunuch is most commonly known as a male whose testicles (and sometimes penis) have been crushed/cut off, i.e castrated. Castration was not practiced by Jews, so these men were of Gentile origin and many times performed this to emulate their female idols for worship. Many eunuchs in Biblical times worked as brothel guards because there was no risk of them having sex with the females. The Law of Moses forbade eunuchs from giving offerings or approaching the alter of God in Leviticus 20:21, most likely due to their known association to idols and immoral occupation. Some theologians believe that eunuchs were referring also to homosexuals because they were men without sexual desires towards females, otherwise Jesus’ wording of “some were born that way” would only be talking about a minuscule amount of men who were born deformed without testicles. Others believe Jesus is talking to celibate men. In this case, some men were born to be celibate rather than choose it or have it forced upon them. Either way, it is no longer the command that man should marry and reproduce as it was in the Law of Moses. Isiah 56:3-5 states, “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord or say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the Lord says: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.” Therefore, God recognizes those who feel cast out and has a place at the table for all Christians whose heart is faced towards God!

As human beings, all of the physical will pass away. We are left with our spiritual selves. Contemplate on these verses that give a new view of marriage that is written right out of the Bible!

Matthew 22:30, (Jesus said,) “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Hebrews 13:4, Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith. They will be fooled by evil spirits and by teachings that come from demons. They will also be fooled by the false claims of liars whose consciences have lost all feeling. These liars will  forbid people to marry…For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Therefore, there are no marriages between individuals in heaven and we are like the angels. Likewise, we are no longer seen separated as male and female, but one in Christ! It also states that marriage is honorable in ALL (Greek word, pas meaning “everyone, whosoever, any, every, the whole”) and it is the promiscuous and unfaithful that will be judged. Furthermore, it was prophesied that in the future that some people would be forbidden to marry each other. Could this be speaking of now and the opposition against marriages between the same gender? On top of it, Revelation 19:1 describes that WE as a body of believers (INCLUDING MEN) are the bride in the final wedding, and Jesus is the groom. With this thought, sexual and gender orientation will pass away. Due to this, sexual orientation and gender is NOT important in Heaven. For even human men will be as a bride in heaven! God knows our hearts. It seems that you will not be judged for how strictly you followed your gender norms of being heterosexual, but how Christ-like you have been. It is not WHO you love, but HOW you love. If you are a Christian, whether straight or gay, you are saved through the blood of Jesus and will partake in all of His heavenly blessings! With this said we can see that gender is not a focus in the perfect New eternal Creation. Gender is a fabric of the First Creation. It is obvious that God created a suitable partner for Adam, which was Eve. This was absolutely necessary for procreation purposes to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Where we fail is to believe that this First Creation was perfect before the fall and assume that heterosexual unions are the only design of God. Remember that in the “perfection” of the First Creation, Satan was lurking around the garden and able to inflict his sentence of death upon its inhabitants. In the New Creation, Satan will be bound forever in the Lake of Fire so that all souls will be protected from the wages of sin which is death. So instead of trying to reflect the OLD First Creation, why not strive for reflection of the New Creation which doesn’t focus on gender? Furthermore, because we are no longer explicitly commanded to multiply in procreation, instead let us “multiply fruitfulness” by bearing good Spiritual fruit by multiplying the body of believers in Christ! 

Christian dividerTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “HOMOSEXUALS” AND “HOMOSEXUAL ACTS”

After reading these passages with a critical eye and considering context, cultural practice and language interpretation, it appears that if these passages are in fact discussing same-sex behavior, they are not condemning all homosexual acts as a whole. In Genesis it is even clear in the English text that it is condemning sex between multiple men (and/or angels) which was against the will of the receiving party.  Therefore, this is a verse against homosexual rape and homosexual orgies. From reading the interpretations above, it is also made known that the Leviticus verses are condemning homosexual acts of rape and/or deceptive coerced sex and/or homosexual acts connected to rituals within idol worship to Molech. The “vice list” verses seem to point to a variety of acts which may include homosexual acts within child molestation (malakos) and male prostitution (arsenokoites), among others. Lastly, the Romans verse discussed that there were homosexual sex acts being performed during idol worship, so this is a verse condemning sexual acts within religious and cult ritual.

With this knowledge it must be noted that there are many verses in the Bible that condemn heterosexual acts such as adultery, incest (in later passages), and prostitution. If we were to say that these verses condemned all heterosexuals, then it would be seen as ridiculous. When one takes the time to research the ancient text, one may come to the same conclusion that the condemnation of these homosexual acts are not condemning all homosexuals entirely. So although there may be some forbidden practices within homosexual and heterosexual sex, these verses do not seem to convict all gay and lesbian people.

Christian dividerPOPOSSIBLE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BIBLE

Although very controversial, there are some stories in the Bible that appear to promote a deep loving relationship and commitment between the same gender (not just friends). Look up the story of David and Jonathan in the book of I and II Samuel.

David and Jonathan

“The soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul… Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, even his sword, his bow, and his girdle.” (I Samuel 18:1-4.)

The Hebrew word for covenant is berit which means “to bond” and in Greek as syntheke, “binding together.” It can not be denied that marriage was considered a covenant in Biblical times and this is the closest verse that may resemble marriage between two men. Secondly, Jonathan immediately disrobed in front of David after the covenant was made and provides a symbol of submission between a relationship of two men which would be seldom seen in a male friendship during this time.

“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. 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 for ever.” (I Samuel 20:41-42)

One does not have to look hard to see that David and Jonathan had a close relationship. They showed physical affection, shared emotions, and seemed to have a bond beyond friendship. This commentary only touches the surface of the signs that these two men may have been involved.

“Very pleasant have you (Jonathan) been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (II Samuel 1:26.)

Ruth and Naomi

Another case is the story of Ruth and Naomi who came together. Ruth 1:14 states that Ruth “clave” (דָּבַק) to Naomi, which uses the same Hebrew word as Genesis 2:24 when describing heterosexual marriage and becoming one flesh. Although these words are used in a several other context, it does not leave out the possibility of a same-sex union. The following verse of Ruth’s commitment to Naomi is often read at heterosexual weddings because it is so touching:

“Where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die-there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” (Ruth 1:16-17)

I am personally unsure if this constitutes a romantic relationship, but it is up to the interpretation of the reader. I know the above text is not proof that God allows same-sex relationships, but I must say that it is a pretty good indicator that the Christian community may be overlooking some key aspects. Also I know that these verses are not clear of a sexual relationship (other than disrobing and kissing), but their love and commitment seems to be accepted by God since David has been described as “a man after God’s own heart.”(Acts 13:22). This was not because David was sinless, but because He fervently sought to follow God’s Will. Although David made mistakes in his human nature, His focus was on obeying the Will of God.

Note that sexual commitments in the Bible are sometimes assumed by inference, due to a couple who share children. Without the “proof” of a child born, some relationships could be sexual without description, as it is not important to the reader to know all the private physical practices of the person described, but their role in glorifying God for His purposes.

Although the Word of God speaks little about homosexual acts and nothing of same-gender marriage (unless David and Jonathan’s “covenant” was in fact a marriage), this is not surprising, as homosexuals make up a very small portion of the population. The Bible also does not speak about hermaphrodites (those born with both male and female sexual organs.) Who are they allowed to marry? I am convicted that just as the Message came “first to the Jew, then to the Gentile,” the blueprint for marriage (as a God-centered monogamous life-long covenant) came “first to the heterosexual (majority), then to the homosexual (minority.) ♥

Christian dividerAncient to modern application: risks and benefits

A common error is to apply ancient concepts to modern views in light of our own culture. This is true of many Biblical topics, but especially the verses that appear to condemn homosexuality. For example, many believe that every time the Bible mentions the word “sodomite,” it is talking about males who have anal sex with males, hence it is a reference to homosexual practice. Yet the word “sodomy” to refer to this act is a term originally coined in the Middle Ages to mean any non-procreative sex act (including heterosexual acts of oral sex, masturbation, etc.) It has only been associated exclusively with homosexuality in modern times. When we see it written in translations of Scripture (including the King James), one automatically assumes it is speaking directly against homosexuals. The truth is that it is not even speaking about the Middle age definition of the word, and in fact is not even present in original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Scripture. The word modernly translated into sodomite is “qadesh,” which has always meant “temple prostitute.” So the Biblical translation of sodomite is not speaking about any homosexual individuals, but temple prostitutes. Here is the PROOF:
Deuteronomy 23:7 sodomite meaningSodomite definition in the Bible is not gay
So when we try to apply ancient concepts to our modern thinking, it can bring about error in many ways.

To the contrary, it was brought to my attention that when we uncover the cultural and linguistic context of these verses, it can hinder us by placing them out of the realm of modern application. This is because we do not often see modern humans involved in idol worship sex ceremonies and/or gang-rape activities, so we can be too far removed from applying these verses in our own lives when we realize they are not speaking about modern homosexuals. Although these practices do still exist in certain cultures, a broader modern application can be procured from these verses which most still see as modern homosexuality. Before I express the modern application in light of the alternate translation, it should be reminded that none of the verses in question condemn committed monogamous same-gender relationships, thus to broadly define them as such can lead into pushing an entire group of potential followers away from Christianity. To remedy this, I will provide what I see as a broader modern application for the topics in question which preserve the inherency of Scripture for all times and cultures:
Modern Biblical application of homosexual verses
As you can see, each of these modernly applied interpretations bring about harm to the individual and/or others. This fits the common theme of all moral sin. But if we instead condemn homosexuality, we have stepped out of the realm of causing harm (the key common attribute of true sin) and even step out of the realm of sin being a conscious choice. To condemn homosexuality as a sin is to interfere with the continuity of defined sins under the New Covenant. The only way to fit homosexuality into this harming attribute of sin is to slew false invalidated statistics which tends to demonize gays as promiscuous disease-ridden child molesters. Note that one has to add a harming trait to make homosexuality appear harmful, as most that believe homosexuality is a sin in Scripture still don’t inherently feel loving monogamous committed gay relationships are harmful in and of itself. Their only excuse for the sin aside from applying false statistics is that “it may not seem fair, but God says so.” Knowing that we are not commanded to procreate under the New Covenant, the accusation of sinfulness in non-procreative coupling alone is not valid. As for gay marriage not seemingly reflecting Christ in the church, I urge you to read this article:
https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/can-a-gay-marriage-reflect-christ-and-the-church/ In addition, if your belief it is because we are biologically built to ONLY be sexually paired as male and female, then also read this article: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/biological-evidence-that-proves-gay-and-lesbian-sex-is-not-unnatural/
 ♥

Christian dividerWhich is worse? Gay / Pride?

This is written to those who still believe being gay is a sin:

To say that homosexuality is not covered by God’s Grace is to have weak faith in the power of the blood of Jesus Christ. Does not His blood wash away all sin to those who believe? Did not God promise a Messiah to save us from all sin because we were hopeless to follow all of the laws without Him? To say that homosexuality is not covered by God’s Grace is to say that sin overpowers God. Christians, this is not the case! You can be both gay and Christian and be covered. It does not say “do not be gay” in the 10 commandments. But it does say “do not covet what belongs to your neighbor.” Who has been guilty of this sin even after becoming a Christian? “I wish I had his car.” “I wish I had her job.” “I wish I had his easy-going life.” Why do we put homosexuality as worse than all sins? Perhaps it is because not everyone on this earth is “guilty” of being homosexual, so it is easy to point the finger and say “look how bad you are! I did not choose to do that!” You are boasting in pride, “look how good I am” as if you chose to be a heterosexual. Pride is sinful (Proverbs 21:4). If you have sinned once in any way, you are guilty of death without the Grace of God. You do not become sinless in your human flesh after becoming a Christian, but you do become sinless in the eyes of God because you are pardoned through Christ.

*Please scroll down and read “We are Not Under the Old Covenant” for Biblical proof that we are no longer under the Law.

This is for you

My hope in sharing this info is to help Christians see a different perspective and help Christian and non-Christian gay and lesbians see that they are not condemned by God. If you are interested in forming a relationship with God in a safe and non-discriminating environment, please go to http://www.gaychurch.org for a world-wide directory of gay affirming churches. You can also connect online with other LGBT Christians at http://www.gaychristian.net

Christians, please remember that people need to be saved ASIDE from their sexual orientation, NOT BECAUSE of their sexual orientation!!! By telling someone they are going to hell if they don’t change something that is ingrained in their being is not the way to lead them to God!

Christian dividerAdditional notes of importance

Abomination: The word abomination is very misunderstood as meaning something horrifically awful in the site of God. The truth is that some things are listed as abominations that are horrifically awful in the site of God. But confusion comes in with our limited English when we see the word “abomination” or “detestable” written in the English Scriptures. There are multiple words of the Hebrew word for “abomination” in Scripture. Each have a different contextual meaning. Most just refer to something ritually unclean, uncommon or forbidden in custom, while others are clear to be related to something morally detestable to God Himself. The word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 for abomination is “towebah.” Many get this confused with things that are abominations to the Lord specifically, not only because of limited English, but because most forms of the word “abomination” share the same Strong number (8441) even though they represent 26 different variations of words with alternate contexts. A towebah abomination appears to be relative to something forbidden by custom. This is made clear by looking at the context of towebah used in Scripture. There are only 16 occurrences and the first verse listed makes things clear: “They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.” (Genesis 43:32.) As you can see, it is an abomination to the Egyptians for a Hebrew to eat with them. This is obviously not an abomination to God Himself, but a matter of violating custom. It proves that a towebah cannot be something horrible to God, otherwise the Hebrews are abominations! Compare this to one of the other most common words for abomination in Hebrew, “towabat” and you will find that most things listed as a towabat (rather than towebah) are an abomination to The Lord Himself. (Example: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.” Proverbs 6:16-19.) So the word abomination seems to be relative to the culture it speaks of, rather than something always sinful or evil to God.

Furthermore, Levitical law was seen as a ceremonial custom and ritual practice of cleanliness for Jews aside from others who were practicing other cult religions or perverting religious practice. (Remember that many were involved in shrine prostitution and sex rituals in which God was disapproving.) The ritual purity laws of Leviticus are different from the moral laws of the commandments. If Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are forbidding homosexual sex, it is in the context of custom to set the Jews apart from the idolatrous Canaanites who were in the land before them. Ritual laws appear to be abolished when Jesus died on the cross. If one were to follow all the laws listed in Leviticus in modern times, then you would know that wearing clothing made from two different fabrics such as 10% Polyester and 90% cotton is completely forbidden by Leviticus law (Leviticus 19:19). Also, it is listed as an abomination to eat shrimp and lobster (Leviticus 11:11-12). If a married couple has sexual relations on her period, they should be deported out of their community (Leviticus 20:18). These are just some of the laws of Moses that contemporary Christians have selectively decided not to follow. But remember this, “Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” (Galatians 3: 23-25)

Fornicators: Some Christians believe that the word fornication or fornicators includes homosexuals. The Hebrew word is zanah and its definition is “to be or act as a harlot (prostitute), to force one into prostitution, to commit adultery (a married person having sex with another person while in marriage), to cause one to commit adultery, to be a cult prostitute, and to be unfaithful to God. The Greek word for fornication is pornos which becomes more specific and adds “a man who prostitutes his body for hire (male prostitute).” None of these words in the definition could be equated with two people of the same gender being in a loving committed relationship.

Sexual Immorality: (Greek– Porneia) I was recently told by a gay Christian who was confronted by a friend who said “homosexuality is mentioned more than 7 times in the Bible because it falls under sexual immorality.” I decided to investigate if this could be proved, and this is what I discovered: Sexual Immorality comes from the Greek word porniea. When studying the Bible, one can see a connection between porniea and a set of sexual acts that are prohibited. These acts include: Adultery (defined by the Hebrews as a women married to a man who has sex with another man, ironically not the other way around.), intercourse during women’s menstruation, pederasty (child molestation, child prostitution, child rape, etc.), and sexual idolatry (pagan cult prostitution by men and women many times associated with fertility goddesses in Corinth.) These are the only references to sexual immorality, so going beyond this by stating other things is not Biblical. If the Bible doesn’t state that homosexuality is porneia, than one cannot assert that it is porneia (sexual immorality). For more information, check the reference below on “What is sexual immorality?”

Sodomite: “Sodomites” is often used in the wrong context in certain Bible translations. Sodomy is a MODERN word for anal sex and sodomite is often defined as a homosexual. When referring to an actual resident of Sodom, the Hebrew word Sedom ( סְדֹם ) is used. But when other verses say “sodomites” as a reference to homosexuals, this is completely misleading. The words used in verses such as 1 Kings 14:24, Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7, Job 36:14, Hosea 4:14, Hosea 6:10 etc., uses the Hebrew word quadesh (קָדֵשׁ) which is without argument, a male shrine prostitute. This is correctly translated in many Bibles, but others still use “sodomites” which is false. Context shows this as proof because each verse speaks about idols. So anytime you read a Bible that references “sodomites,” be sure to check the context to see if it is speaking about the actual people of Sodom or a misleading translation that actually means male shrine prostitutes.

Strange flesh: (Repeated earlier) Jude 1:7 speaks of those in Sodom going after “strange flesh” (Greek words: sarkos heteras) which is equated to “going after one not of the same nature or class.” It is obvious that two people of the same sex would be of the same nature or class even more than a male and female. Humans are in a different nature and class to angels just as we are in a different class to animals. Therefore, “strange flesh” is referring to angel and human relations and/or bestiality, not homosexual sex.

Unnatural: (Greek- Para physin.) The meaning of “unnatural” in the Biblical culture was not of a moral nature, but meaning “out of the ordinary and unusual.” It is true that homosexuality is not as ordinary as heterosexuality. In Romans 11:24, GOD acted “unnatural” (out of the ordinary.) The same words “para physin” were used in the Biblical text to describe what God had done. If “unnatural” were a moral issue, than this would be to say that God was immoral, which is obviously the furthest thing from truth!

Secondly, many believe that the biological complimentary differences of males and females prove that only heterosexual sexual unions are natural. The explanation of this error is graphic in nature, but can be fully explained. Read further for biological evidence that human beings are also naturally designed for homosexual sexual unions: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/biological-evidence-that-proves-gay-and-lesbian-sex-is-not-unnatural/

Without natural affection: In Romans 1:31 the list of sins included “those without natural affection” (Greek word- astrorgous.) Ironically, this does not speak of those with homosexual attraction, but is the word for “family love/family ties.” Without or against “natural affection” (astrorgous) is speaking of those who despise or reject their family members. The reason this is ironic is because it could apply to families who reject their gay or lesbian family member(s)!

Christian dividerWE ARE NOT UNDER THE OLD COVENANT!

Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Christians are 100% saved

“We have freedom now, because Christ made us free. So stand strong. Do not change and go back into the slavery of the law.” -Galatians 5:1

If you still believe that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin after reading all of this information, I still have good news for you that gays, lesbians and bisexuals can be Christians without rejecting their sexual orientation! It has been told to us by the Bible that we are no longer under the Old Covenant in which the laws of Moses are pertinent to Salvation. “He wiped out the written Law with its rules. The Law was against us. It opposed us. He took it away and nailed it to the cross. “ – Colossians 2:13. Why then was the law created you may ask? “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” -Hebrews 8:7. Therefore, the Old Covenant (Law of Moses) was enforced to create a need for redemption through Jesus. Not only that, but following the Levitical laws is not going to save you.  “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’ But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” Galatians 3:10-13. Jesus stated, “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.'” -Luke 22:20. “By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” -Hebrews 8:13. Therefore, the requirement to follow the laws of Moses and atone for every sin through a priest and individual blood sacrifice have been made obsolete through the final atonement that we have received for all sins through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The old laws were made for the need for a savior, not for salvation. “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” -Romans 8:1

Because the Old Covenant was imperfect and too difficult for man to follow, Jesus has made it easy for us to simply have faith in Him through His sacrifice in which He fulfilled the law of the prophets. We are to live by the commands of the New Covenant which are to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and “Love your neighbor as yourself. These two commandments sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:37-40.

It can be seen that in this context, Jesus spoke of the Old Covenant to show that they are impossible to follow, so that a New Covenant is needed through Him. Examples in the Gospels are many, some including Matthew 5:27-31, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:31-32, Luke 18:18-27. In the last example, the rich ruler was told by Jesus that it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. When the ruler asked how anyone could even go to Heaven, Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” This is fulfilled by the New Covenant of Jesus which gives forgiveness of all sins washed away by His blood to anyone who accepts Him! Jesus proclaimed, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” -Matthew 7:13. So what exactly is the narrow gate? Is it based upon how well you abstained from homosexual activity? Jesus gives the answer, “I am the gate. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved.” -John 10:9. This can’t possibly be it, right? Once again, go to the Bible for the answer.  “Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent… Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.’” – John 6: 28-29, 47-49.

You may be saying, “so I am now allowed to murder, steal, and commit adultery?” If you think this, then you are missing the point. Yes, God would forgive you of all these acts in repentance, but no, this is not what God intends for your life because it does not demonstrate love. We are to follow the Will of God and practice love to all. It may be said that if it is not of love, then it is not of God. “You died with Christ. Now the forces of the universe don’t have any power over you. Why do you live as if you had to obey such rules as, ‘Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!’ These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.” -Colossians 2: 20-21, 23. Do you truly see evil in two adults in monogamous lifelong love?

So what is the opposite of fulfilling the New Covenant of loving God and loving others?  First would be not to love God nor acknowledge His son and second would be to have a heart filled with hate for another person or group of people. 1 John 3:15 states, “Everyone who hates his brother or sister is a murderer.” So in the eyes of God, hate is comparable to murder! This is not said to make you feel like a horrible person, neither am I assuming that all who believe homosexuality is a sin are hateful people. This verse is shown to you  that we are all hopeless without the Grace of Christ, as we have all sinned in some form or another. Furthermore, in Acts 10:15 Peter has a vision in which God says to him, “What God has made clean you must not call unholy.” He then goes on to say to the outsiders, “God has shown me that I should never call a person impure or unclean.” -Acts 10:28. Likewise in Romans, Paul asserts that we should no longer judge our fellow Christian brothers and sisters in our disputable differences. He explains that some eat meat and those with weak faith abstain and eat only vegetables. Some observe one day as more important, and others see every day alike. These differences are not to be judged, but honored because if each one does it for the Lord in thanks (do it or abstain), than God accepts them.  “The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” Romans 14:3. He concludes by saying “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.”-Romans 14: 14. So it could be assumed that a heterosexual considers homosexuality unclean to them self because it is against their personal natural desire. But to the homosexual whose desires are naturally towards the same gender, homosexuality is NOT unclean when we are under the Grace of Jesus. Both the heterosexual and homosexual that gives thanks to God are accepted by God. What lesson may be learned from these verses is that Christians should not judge another on the basis of what they view as unclean or unholy, as it is God who cleanses all sin to anyone that believes! Please remember that we are instructed not to show hate or a condemning spirit towards anyone, but rather to love unconditionally as God loves us!

So to the gay Christian who struggles with their same-sex attraction and fears Hell, I am led to tell you this Bible story which may mirror your life experience. Have you heard about “the thorn in Paul’s flesh?” This was some type of unknown/undisclosed sin that Paul struggled with, yet even in His struggle with continued sin, God was merciful with Him and is just as merciful with you today. Read these words very carefully: “Therefore, in order to keep me humble, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” -2 Corinthians 12:7-10. Do you realize what this means? God’s GRACE saves you no matter what you continue to struggle with. Even if being gay is a sinful act, God uses your struggle for His glory and STILL saves you from the judgment of Hell. Look how Paul struggled and asked God to remove this “thorn” but He kept it for His glory! Instead of Paul complaining, he rejoiced in his thorn because it is proof that God saved Paul through Jesus, just as He has saved you! Also from Paul, “I do not do the good things I want to do, but I do the bad things I do not want to do. So if I do things I do not want to do, then I am not the one doing them. It is sin living in me that does those things. So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. In my mind, I am happy with God’s law. But I see another law working in my body, which makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and it makes me its prisoner. What a miserable man I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? I thank God for saving me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”-Romans 7:21-25. Clearly Paul had great struggles, just as you do. Just as I do. Just as everyone does. The difference between Paul, you, and I compared to others, is that not everyone has chosen the grace of Jesus Christ. These unbelievers are the ones that are worthy of death by rejecting Jesus. God provided one simple way out for us all, but only those who accept this message of truth will be worthy to God. Because you truly believe, you are made worthy to God through Jesus despite your sinful nature. Praise God for that and thank Jesus for taking on all of our deserved punishment!!!! Remember again, we are NOT saved through works. Do you realize what this truly means? Nothing we do in this life will bring us to Heaven. Not one good act. Not one bad act. Not a trillion good acts. Not a trillion bad acts. ONLY through our acceptance of Jesus’ death on the cross are we 100% saved and going to Heaven. In this, delight! Remember this, “We have freedom now, because Christ made us free. So stand strong. Do not change and go back into the slavery of the law.” -Galatians 5:1 As you delight in this, show Christs’ love to others! For this is the true fulfillment of God’s law!

One of the most important verses in the Bible which describes what is asked of us (in works) as human beings is this, “Let love be your only debt! If you love others, you have done all that the law demands. In the law there are many commandments such as ‘be faithful in marriage,’ ‘do not murder,’ ‘do not steal,’ ‘do not want what belongs to others.’ But all these are summed up in the commandment that says ‘love others as much as you love yourself.’ no one who loves others will harm them. So love is all that the law demands. – Romans 13:8-12. Hence, love is the ultimate fulfillment of all the laws/commandments in the New Covenant. Ask yourself this question, do you see a lack of love between two members of the same gender in a permanent committed union?

“God has shown me that I should never call a person impure or unclean…What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” -Acts 10: 28, 15

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN GOD’S PLAN:

Same-sex relationship or celibacy for life?

Through the year I have come to a conclusion as a Christian lesbian… I have found that some of us are convicted that God accepts us (how I feel) and others are convicted to be celibate or change. At first I felt defensive to prove to everyone that being gay is acceptable to God. Now I see that those who are convicted otherwise are not always off track. Who am I to argue with God’s plan for someone’s life? I feel that God deals with each of us individually. I feel that the majority of people are just struggling with the world’s view of homosexuality as a sin and CAN come to self-acceptance. BUT there are others who are genuinely convicted to abstain from a same-sex relationship, but the reason may be different than what they think. I think that some may be a bit confused as to why they are convicted to abstain or change. It is all too easy to blame it on the gay thing… God may call someone to celibacy because if they had been involved in a relationship with the same gender (or opposite gender if they had been straight), than they may have been ultra-focused on the relationship and not focused enough on God. It could have led them away from where they needed to be with God in His plan for their life. I recently heard of a gay prostitute drug addict who became a Christian and was called to celibacy. Could it be possible that God called him to be alone because a relationship with the same gender could have been a trigger for him and led him back into the prostitution/drug lifestyle? Instead he just thought it was “being gay” that was wrong. Also, I have come to the conclusion that there could be those called to celibacy that would have been promiscuous otherwise. I believe that it would have been their promiscuity that was unacceptable to God, but once again, they may assume its just being gay that is wrong. There are many other reasons that could be confused for the “being gay” part as the reason that one must turn from experiencing a relationship with the same gender.

But all together I must say that I now have a better grasp on these issues. If one is happy being celibate and does it in thanks and to the glory of God, than God accepts that person. If one is happy in a relationship with the same gender and does so in a God-centered relationship and give thanks and glory to God, than God accepts that person… But if one is in internal conflict, I believe they have more soul searching to do to see what God has in store for their life. I still believe that there is nothing wrong with being gay regardless. I pray that we are all aligned with what God has in His plan for our life and that no one needlessly suffers. I believe that for those who are no longer experiencing internal conflict, they may be exactly where God wants them, but (to me) this is not confirmation that being gay is a sin. God’s reasons are not always so simple in our human understanding.

Click below to search your heart to see if you have been given the Spiritual Gift of Celibacy: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/the-gift-of-celibacy-and-homosexuality/

Lastly, and most controversial, some believe that homosexuals can transform into heterosexuals. Below are a list of readings that explain this concept as well as demonstrate how this APPEARS to be possible when at least one out of two conditions are met. Please read on to see how the ex-gay movement has deceived millions: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/ex-gays-and-ex-straights/

Furthermore, explore the reasons behind sexual orientation and the healings of Jesus: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/if-god-is-against-my-homosexuality-than-why-wont-he-heal-me-to-be-heterosexual/

In conclusion, research the rare cases and conditions that make it appear that sexual orientation is “changeable”: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/is-sexual-orientation-change-possible-how-to-successfully-stop-being-gay/

I leave you with this verse that says it all. Read carefully:

 “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.-Romans 14: 1-14

Christian dividerFinal Thoughts, Warnings and Prayer 

This body of Biblical research provides strong evidence that the original texts of the Bible do not condemn all of homosexuality, but specifically target acts of harm such as homosexual acts of gang-rape, prostitution, molestation, promiscuity, sex acts in idol worship, etc. It further demonstrates that the Bible does not explicitly condemn consensual same-gender God-centered monogamous, life-long unions. However, it must be acknowledged that despite this information, the Bible still does not explicitly mention support of same-gender unions. This lack of mention does not prove condemnation, but it also does not prove explicit acceptance, as the Bible does not mention every matter, but does speak to every person. Although much evidence can be gathered that it is not condemned, due to the lack of word-for-word explicit Scriptural acceptance, one must rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to do the Will of God in faith for their own life. We are explicitly taught to act according to bestowing love to God and others and flee from harming God and others. One should ask, what then will bear the most Spiritual fruit; To condemn, suppress, or express love?

If you have a homosexual orientation, it is best to ask God how He can use this for His glory in light of His grace. For some, it may be a call to celibacy to honor God and be a positive testimony to others with the same conviction. For others, they may be convicted to have liberty to be in a God-centered same-sex union to honor God and be a positive testimony to others with the same conviction. Lastly, with the most warning, some may be called into a heterosexual union despite their lack of heterosexual attractions to honor God and be a positive testimony to others with the same conviction. This last one has a warning attached only because it can easily cause harm to the heterosexual spouse and give false hope to others, but in some rare cases, this can be a positive testimony and has the potential blessing of dual-biological children. Furthermore, there are those who were sexually abused that sometimes identify with the homosexual sexual aspect of orientation but are in fact natural heterosexuals, so any claim of “change” in orientation must be viewed with great caution. Be sure to follow the guidance of God for your part in this rather than the fallible ideas of humans in this world. Regarding these things, remember Romans 12:2-5: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the Will of God…For by the Grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sound judgment each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many parts and the parts do not have all the same function. So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually parts one of another.”

Furthermore, we must admit that the original first design mentioned in the Bible is marriage between a male and female. It has been shown to me that this saying “the two shall become one flesh” means that the two (male and female) shall become one flesh (produce a child.) I am the one flesh of the two of my parents, as are all of you. The first creation design was in fact male and female for this reason of continuation, and we know that the perfect eternal New Creation has no focus on gender. We are not yet in the New Creation, however, procreation is no longer mandatorily commanded, as even Jesus says “not everyone can accept this saying, but only to those to whom it was given.” (Matthew 19:11.) We are also told that “in the beginning, God created them male and female,” but now we are told “we are no longer male and female, but one in Jesus Christ.” (Matthew 19:4/Mark 10:6, Galatians 3:28). Interestingly, the Greek word used for “female” (thélus, strong number 2338, 5 occurrences) only in these above verses AND in Romans 1:26,27 is an ADJECTIVE, not a noun. So as a descriptive word, it is a type of female meaning “a woman with nursing breasts” which shows its tie to procreation. So it would not be an error to reflect the New Creation which ignores gender rather than the old first creation that demands marital procreation of the two becoming one flesh. This is not to say that all should stop procreation, but that it is of our own free will to do so, just as Jesus confirms.

The original first design for marriage does not prove that same-gender marriages are illegitimate to God, but rather that they are an adaptation to the blueprint of marriage presented in Scripture as a God-centered lifelong monogamous covenant. Just as the message came “first to the Jew, then to the Gentile,” the blueprint for marriage became known first to the heterosexual, then to the homosexual. Romans 11 gives the image of an Olive tree as the family of God. The first “natural branches” represent the Jews as God’s first chosen people. The “branches grafted into the Olive tree” represent the Gentiles who were “grafted in contrary to nature” (Romans 11:24). Let me now make a symbolic comparison. So if the original first design of marriage was between a male and female, these are like the first natural branches. Now as for a marriage between the same-gender, these are like the branches grafted in despite being contrary to the natural branches. It should be acknowledged that Biblical linguistics show more than a symbolic comparison. The Greek phrase “contrary to nature” (“para physin,” Strong numbers 3884 & 5449, phrase – 2 occurrences) in this verse about God’s acceptance of the unnatural Gentiles is the exact same as the Greek phrase for “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26. Once again, this Greek phrase only occurs twice in all of Scripture in Romans 1:26 and Romans 11:24. So let us not dishonor either type of the branches, the natural first nor the unnatural grafted, as it warns, “Do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, consider this: You do not support the Root, but the Root supports you.” (Romans 11:18). So be humbled by His amazing grace and know that you are loved by Him despite the prideful condemnation from the world. This is my conviction of faith as it pertains to these things…

With this said, one must pray for discernment for the Will of God in their own life regarding these matters. It is best to always remember that we are all sinners and need the redemptive power of grace offered through the blood sacrifice of the One and Only Savior, Yeshua Ha-Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah). If you are in a romantic same-sex union, pray for it to be sanctified by the grace of God. Not because you believe it is otherwise a sin, but because all marriages should be sanctified for the glory of Yahweh! We must remember, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy!” (Acts 10:15). Keep Him first in everything that you do and never forget the grace bestowed on all of us as fallen sinners. Remember that we are all sinners worthy of death, “but you were washed, you were sanctified and you were justified in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11). So with this said, pray for your role with Scriptural knowledge and thank Yahweh for His grace offered through His Son. Always remember His words: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in your weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

Perhaps the biggest question should not be wether homosexuality is a sin or not, but wether one believes in the power of Christ’s blood enough to forgive us if it is sin. I believe the sacrifice He made was not in vein and nothing can snatch those who are called to the Faith out of His hand (refer to John 10:27-30). Christ does not let go, so why should we assume His grasp falls short of saving us? We are sanctified, justified and purified by His blood! Our identity is in CHRIST!

Authors’ note to the reader 

The bottom line is that this neither proves nor disproves that homosexuality is a sin or not a sin. It leaves the reader realizing that it is much more ambiguous than the words appear in the English text. If there is room for doubt, then there must be room to question. There must be infallible proof to say one way or another, and there is not due to language barriers. So how you proceed with this information is up to you, but I hope that you leave with a sense of uncertainty to question what this topic is really about and that there are two sides to the story depending on how you read it. It can take years to undue your previous biased perception, but I ask that you take the first step in not disregarding the words written above. Think upon them, pray upon them, and ask God for His truth. In addition, I believe it is important to look at the overall message of the Bible in context. What is the most important message? I believe that it is that God gave us the free will opportunity to love Him and accept the grace of His son that He sent to die and pay the penalty for all of our sins. Even God Himself knew that we were not near perfect enough to follow His laws as the sole way to achieve eternity with Him. Good works are pleasing, but they are not the means of receiving salvation. He has given us these laws knowing that we can not fully follow them, which gives the need for a savior to redeem us which I believe to be Jesus Christ. I leave you with this verse from Romans, the very book that appears to condemn me the most.

“Let love be your only debt! If you love others, you have done all that the law demands. In the law there are many commandments such as ‘be faithful in marriage,’ ‘do not murder,’ ‘do not steal,’ ‘do not want what belongs to others.’ But all these are summed up in the commandment that says ‘love others as much as you love yourself.’ no one who loves others will harm them. So love is all that the law demands.– Romans 13:8-12

Disclaimer: The above information provided is just a different way of reading the Bible in its interpretation. It is not to say that the Bible is wrong, but that we may be reading it incorrectly. I urge you to research the Bible for yourself and pray to God to show you the truth of His word. Do not simply rely on the human interpretation of what you have been told by others, but listen to what the Lord speaks to your heart with discernment. I pray that I am not misleading anyone, but have peace and assurance that God is loving and forgiving and wants us all to come to Him and not be turned away by those who persecute and claim His name.

Yahweh Yeshua Christian dividerReferences

  • The Holy Bible (Wycliffe New Testament, Old King James Version, Young’s Literal Translation, American Standard Version, New International Version [1984, 2005, 2011], The Message, New Living Translation)
  • Hebrew and Greek Interlinear Bible and Concordance (Old King James, New American Standard)
  • Septuagint (Greek/English) Old Testament
  • Full Text Hebrew/Greek Bible Gematria Database
  • Aramaic New Testament
  • What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel A. Helminak (2000)
  • Arsenokoites– What is the Historical Meaning of this Rare Greek Word? (2006) http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
  • Leviticus Abominations Explained (Video), Scott Nemeth (2009)
  • Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality (Study), Ebn Mayram (modified March 2011)
  • Christianity and Homosexuality (Reconciled), Dr. Joseph A. Pearson, President of Christ Evangelical Bible Institute
  • For the Bible Tells Me So (Documentary), Daniel Karslake (2007)
  • One Nation Under God (Documentary), Teodoro Maniaci & Francine M. Rzeznik, (1993)
  • Study of Romans (study), Rembert Truluck http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/
  • Follow Jesus, Not Moses, Tim (modified 01/2011) http://www.jesusfamilies.org/hot_topics/thelaw.htm
  • What is “Sexual Immorality?”, Liberated Christians, Pheonix AZ

For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 (KJV)

VIDEOS

(*Turn on speakers for sound. Note that some of my videos have been taken off due to new music copyrights. I will eventually re-create lost videos as time permits.)

Four Truths about Sodom:

Leviticus Uncovered:

Leviticus Part 2: The Idol that Condemned Gay Culture

Romans Revealed:

Jesus on Same-Sex Marriage:

Homosexuality in the Bible: Mistranslating a “Lifestyle”

(In depth look at arsenokoites and malakos)

MORE VIDEOS TO COME!

Read my newest post that offers Biological evidence that proves gay and lesbian sex is NOT unnatural found at https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/biological-evidence-that-proves-gay-and-lesbian-sex-is-not-unnatural/

♥ Back to Table of Contents ♥

NOTE: This IS http://turn.to/gaychristians but can no longer be accessed through the “turn.to” site due to its web hosting affiliates going out of business. The new short link is http://www.gaychristians.2freedom.com

©2010 – 2014 Anyone is welcome to use this material to propagate a deeper understanding of the Bible. If copied directly, please give credit to the author so that all information is able to be accessed through https://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/
Advertisements

About moanti (moe·on·tee)

My main mission of this blog is to demystify the confusion of “homosexuality” in the Bible and let the rarely heard alternative perspective be known. I also aspire to spread the loving Word of Christ to the gay and lesbian community who feel left out due to our society. I have extraordinary compassion for gays and lesbians who have struggled with religious persecution, but hope that they can come to know God as loving rather than run from Him forever due to a group of naïve heterosexual Christians who discriminated against them. I want to bridge the gap of these two groups with knowledge! If only I had a bigger podium to accomplish this… Please spread the word. Thank you and happy reading! https://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/
This entry was posted in Bible, Bisexual, Christian, Christianity, Gay, Gay and Lesbian Christians, Lesbian, LGBT, Prop 8, Romans, Self-Help Tips, Sodom and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

373 Responses to Homosexuality in the Bible? – An alternative perspective

  1. This is a wonderful post and may be one that you should followed up to see what goes on

    A neighbor sent this link the other day and I am desperately looking your next article. Keep on on the wonderful work.

  2. Found out your site via msn the other day and absolutely liked it so much. Carry on the truly amazing work.

  3. Wow, this was a really quality post. In theory I’ d like to write like this too – taking time and actual effort to make a great article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and in no way appear to get something done.

  4. I absolutely adore your blog! I found this post to be very enlightening.

  5. Pingback: Pastor unknowingly proves that homosexuality is NOT a sin | Writings of a Christian lesbian

  6. Joe says:

    Thanks so much for your blog and videos! They have really strengthened my faith and acceptance of myself for being gay and Christian. God bless you!

    • I am so glad that these resources were helpful to you Joe! This is my prayer, that I am able to help other gay Christians like you come to the knowledge of God’s love and acceptance. May God bless you also!

  7. chris says:

    Here’s my reading of Matthew 19 as it relates to same-sex marriage. I’d be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have on it.

    http://www.jesusradicals.com/jesus-on-same-sex-marriage/

    • Hi Chris,
      Thanks for sharing your link. I agree with you that the focus of Jesus’ responses in both Matthew 19 and 22 were not meant to be focused upon the “required gender” of married partners, but rather the earthly commitment of the marriage union itself.
      -Moanti

  8. angie says:

    Here is a near death experience from 2 lesbians and a gay guy.

    http://www.near-death.com/dale.html

  9. Pingback: Thou shalt not lie with a man? – Exploring the sexual use of the Hebrew word “shakab” (“to lie with”) in Scripture | Writings of a Christian lesbian

  10. Pingback: Coming Out as Gay or Lesbian to Christian Parents – The Stages of Parental Reaction to a Homosexual Son or Daughter | Writings of a Christian lesbian

  11. nina says:

    Hello, I am a Christian and I believe that acting on homosexual urges is a sin (so I would be in the celibacy camp). I am straight, married and am personally convicted of my position. HOWEVER, after only a few minutes of perusing your site, I am…pleased. It is clear to me that you have sincerely sought out God’s will concerning your life and I find it to be refreshing. Many who profess to be Christians fall short in seeking God’s will in their lives on much smaller matters. I love that you speak about grace, and the insufficiency of the first covenant–that we could not live up to its precepts in spite of our efforts. I believe that God rewards those who diligently seek Him. While I don’t know that I agree with your conclusions, I certainly respect them, as I would hope other Christians would. It is not our role to judge or to convict, only God can, and he does it on an individual basis. I can think of a number of Biblical ‘truths’ upon which Christians vehemently disagree. Websites like yours remind me that there will be Christians from both sides of each of those proverbial fences worshipping him in heaven. Be Blessed.

  12. Scott says:

    Hi there. I’ve been doing some extensive research on this topic, and based on what I’ve found I wholly with you about the way homosexuality is dealt with in context in the Scripture. I just wanted to raise a few concerns, for clarification purposes, that were originally apparently raised by someone else on another blog. (http://mcclare.wordpress.com/2004/12/09/back-to-first-principles-on-same-sex-marriage/)

    The person contends that your argument on the meaning of arsenokoite appearing in non-Biblical Greek writings does not hold up because arsen and koite appearing in close proximity to each other do not mean the same thing as the compound word arsenokoites – any more than “butter” and “fly” in the same sentence must refer to a butterfly. I am not a linguistics major, by any means, so I wanted to get your take on that. Is the compound word itself explicitly used, or do they merely appear close together?

    Secondly, do you know the context of the quote by John the Faster? That would be helpful.

    Thanks!

    • Hi Scott! Thanks for your questions! The compound word “arsenokoitai” is explicitly used in other Greek manuscripts, not just “arsen” and “koitai” in close proximity. I think where the author (of the other blog) got confused is what I was referring to. He actually proved the point I was trying to make in the first place. Theologians have defined “arsenokoites” in the Bible as meaning homosexuality because Leviticus 18 and 20 have the words “arsen” and “koitai” in close proximity. The point I was trying to make is that “arsen” and “koitai” are also found in 37 other Bible verses that have no possible connection to homosexuality. So the fact that “arsenokoites” is being defined as homosexuals because the single words “arsen” and “koitai” are found in close proximity in the Levitical verses (that appear to condemn homosexuality) provides no proof that it is what it means. Does that make sense? So that other author actually argued FOR my point. 😉

      As far as John the Faster, I would have to do more research. I am not as familiar with these quotes and base most of my conclusions off of the Scriptures themselves, as I find they have the final authority. Also, Paul is the first author to record this word without a given definition, so I feel that going through the Scriptures have more validity than what a Greek author may have translated it as meaning. None the less, this word was used as “arsenokoitai” in John the Faster’s writings. Note though, that the word “arsenokoitai” is not in the Bible. It is “arsenokoites.” The difference is important. Arsen means “man” and koites means “beds.” So that’s man (singular) beds (plural) which could mean “a man in many beds” aka male prostitution.” When we use arsenokoitai it is “man” (singular) “bed” (singular) so this could potentially change the meaning. Just a thought.

  13. Scott says:

    Another point I wanted to mention that was raised by someone in a discussion I had a couple months ago. They said that in Romans chapter 1, Paul is referring not to pagan worshippers/temple prostitutes, but to Christians who once had a relationship with God, and that Paul explains that these type of Christians fall away because they worship creature rather than creator. According to him, pagans couldn’t have known God or God’s righteous decrees, so Paul could not have been referring to them.

    How can we be absolutely sure that Paul was specifically talking about cult prostitution/pagan worship practices, and not all homosexuals in general? This is another question I stumble with.

    • Hello again Scott,
      I am glad you came to me about this. It appears that the person you have had this discussion with has not read the full context of Romans or did not understand it fully. He quotes correctly that these Romans worshiped created things rather than the Creator. If you want the full answer to your question, re-read Romans chapter 1 in full context… But here are a few quotes that make Paul’s point clear. It is written, “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18-23 NKJV) Here we can see that Paul is explaining that ALL of humanity (not just pagans or Christians) have been shown that God exists from the very begining of the creation of the world. It says that “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…” So this is saying that ALL people have been shown that God exists through His creation. It states that God has made Himself known to everyone, not just to Christians. In this way, they are without excuse… If God has made His “invisible attributes clearly seen” to everyone, than this means that everyone has a choice to worship God, worship nothing, or worship something else…

      So now after making this known, Paul speaks directly to the people that have chosen to worship created things (idols) instead of the Creator (God). In this way, he is speaking to those who are pagan idol worshipers. “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” This “image” is an idol made from the image of man, animals, etc. Therefore, the target audience at this point are not all past Christians or atheists, but those that worship idols. He goes onto then say “24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” So these specific people exchanged their internal knowledge of God for idols… In doing so, “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.”

      This is the way I see this passage: Because these people worshiped idols rather than God, they performed vile sexual practices. Even the women exchanged their natural use of marital sex for doing that which is against nature by having anal sex as shrine prostitutes in idol worship… Likewise, the men had anal sex as shrine prostitutes in idol worship (as well as worshiping men having sex with these male prostitutes.) “Men with men working that which is unseemly” can also be translated “men with men performing (on) women’s genitals” (read the Greek meanings of “working” and “unseemly” in this passage for conformation of this POSSIBLE translation at http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=Romans+1%3A27&t=kjv ). So this could go further into speaking about the Roman pagan orgies that occurred, or it could simply be further talking about men with idol prostitutes by either translation. The “due penalty for their error” is the “due penalty of sin” which for all of us without Salvation is death and separation from God. There are a lot of points to be made throughout the text and it is hard to put it all in one comment. I suggest you also check out some of my other writings on the topic of Romans: https://moanti.wordpress.com/category/romans/

      If we look at Romans in the same logic as the person you had the discussion with and apply it to all homosexuals, than it would mean that Christians who reject the message and decide to worship “created things” turn gay as a result. It states that “for this reason God gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.” So does this mean that Ex-Christians that fall away transform into being gay? This logic just doesn’t make sense. The context of the passage is quite clearly speaking to idol worshipers… So the Romans passages talking about same-sex (and opposite sex) activities seems to directly connect to sexual idol worship activities. This is also made clear by looking at the context of all the verses that appear to condemn homosexuality aside from the attempted male gang-rape in Sodom.

      I hope this helped! If you want to speak further on any issue privately, you can send me a comment with your email address (and I just won’t approve it for public viewing) and I can email you any more info you need. I am always up for helping people with these issues. You will be in my prayers Scott! Thanks again for writing!

    • angela says:

      Scott here are some articles that might help you has well.

      http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
      http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html

  14. Pingback: Homosexuality in the Bible: The Bible verse most Christians don’t like to quote | Writings of a Christian lesbian

  15. angela says:

    Throughout the Old Testament the word Toevah is applied to murder (Jer. 7:9; Ezek. 22:6; Prov. 6:17), swearing falsely (Jer. 7:9; Ezek. 22:9, 12; Prov. 6:19), habitual lying (Prov. 6:16; 12:22; 26:25-28), oppressing or not aiding the poor, alien, widows, and orphans (Ezek. 16:47-52; 18:7, 12, 16; 22:7, 29), and appointing to official positions in the temple those who are not loyal to Yahweh (Ezek. 44:6-8),

    is what many use againist toevah has cultic. How would you explain this.

    • Hi Angela,
      Thanks for your questions. I researched all of the verses you gave me in context and went a bit deeper with the help of a few expert commentaries.
      There are a few things to consider. These verses that connect to’evah (abomination) to seemingly non-idol worshiping acts are still behaviors that were practiced heavily in cultic lands. The people who primarily committed these acts were known for worshiping idols or had false religions (They spilled innocent blood in idol worship sacrifice, continuously lied with false doctrine, were inhospitable to travelers (aliens) to the point of gang-rape, etc.) Also, for the most part, any of these acts you mentioned are far down the list (or sentences away) from the word to’evah, yet idol worship is almost always right there next to it. So it could also be possible that the other acts may not be directly considered a to’evah when looking at the Hebrew Text. Even if they are, they were acts known to be practiced by the pagans in excess, thus still bear a connection to cultic worship.

      Another big point to consider is that Ezekiel has seemingly non-idol worship things attached to to’evah, but what one must remember is that much of Ezekiel is a PROPHECY and communicates future events in a SYMBOLIC way, very much like the book of Revelation. It colorfully details what many have decoded as the times of the anti-Christ, which would be the ultimate idolatry/false religion. An example of this type of symbolism is Ezekiel 22:11; “And one hath committed abomination (to’evah) with his neighbour’s wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter.” Reading this verse without its context makes it seem that it only speaks against basic incest and adultery. Of course these things are wrong, but to only pull out this verse and focus on the physical acts is missing the point of the author’s intent. If you look at chapter 22 and the book of Ezekiel as a whole, it becomes clear that it is talking about a SPIRITUAL abomination of adultery or incest, rather than literal physical adultery or incest. It is an abomination of idolatry in its most dangerous form; defiling a loved one into the doctrine of the Anti-Christ. So this verse in Ezekiel symbolically says that one has seduced their neighbors wife into the idolatrous doctrine of the Anti-Christ, another has pulled in his daughter-in-law, sister, etc. The end times draws near to the Marriage of Jesus Christ with the Church, so anyone who is pulled into the Anti-Christs’ doctrine has (symbolically) “lost their virginity” to the evil one and not fit for Marriage to the King of Kings.

      This is of course just one example, but for the most part, the majority of these verses can be connected to cultic idolatry, literally and sometimes symbolically. So I suppose this is where this wide belief that to’evah is usually connected with idolatry comes from… You can read more about the idolatrous end times symbolism of to’evah in Ezekiel 22 at http://www.theseason.org/ezekiel/ezekiel22.html

      But there are a few exceptions (I will have to correct my article above). Proverbs 6 speaks directly to things that are an abomination “to The Lord.” Although idolatry is not listed here as in most other verses, they are things which idolatrous nations were known for, and to practice such things as a worshiper of Yahweh would be idolatrous to God. What may be most significant is the fact that it says they are abominations unto The Lord Himself. The reason this is significant is because most would think of abominations as being something black or white in every circumstance. Many would say “it is either an abomination, or not an abomination.” But we can see in five verses that what is an abomination to some is not at all an abomination to others:

      The first several times that to’evah is introduced in the Bible demonstrates the relative application of some abominations. Genesis 43:42 says that it is an abomination to the Egyptians for them to eat with Hebrews (because they worshiped Yahweh rather than their gods, i.e., Egyptian idolatry.) Genesis 46:34 says that every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians (because shepherd were associated with Jews who worshiped Yahweh, i.e., Egyptian idolatry.) Most compelling is Exodus 8:25-28, which talks about the Pharaoh telling Moses and Aaron to make a sacrifice to Yahweh in Egypt. They refused because they said it would not be right for them to make a sacrifice to Yahweh in Egypt because it was an abomination, not to God, but to the Egyptians! The Egyptians worshiped false gods, so sacrificing to the one true God on their land was idolatry to them! Consequently, Moses and Aaron planned on a 3 days journey into the wilderness in order to make a sacrifice to Yahweh to avoid committing an abomination against the Egyptians. Obviously making a sacrifice to Yahweh cannot be an abomination to ALL people, so this shows how it is relative to the particular cultural group and has its connection with idolatry.

      This last story about sacrificing to Yahweh being an abomination to Egyptians really expresses the relative meaning behind to’evah. It shows that what is an abomination for some is not an abomination to all. So in total, many of the abominations listed were abominations specifically for the Jews under the Old Covenant. Others are abominations for the Egyptians (or other cultic nations.) Lastly, some of the things listed (which do not always fall under the umbrella of idol worship) are specific abominations to Yahweh Himself which are always wrong, under any circumstance.

      So wrapping it up, it seems we have different types of to’evah’s (abominations) in 3 major categories:
      1) to’evah’s of association with idolatrous practices (the most common)
      2) to’evah’s regarding ritual and sacrifice for Jews under the Old Covenant (including dietary restrictions, unclean practices, animals forbidden from sacrifice, etc.)
      3) to’evah’s to The Lord regarding ethical standards for worshipers of Yahweh

      Although many would like to place Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 into category 3, this simply does not fit. There is a lot more evidence that same-gender sex was connected to idol worship practice, thus placed as a ritual restriction to the Jews under the Old Covenant. Male shrine prostitution and the gang-rape of travelers are the context in which all same-gender sex acts are discussed in Scripture (Genesis 19 ; Leviticus 18, 20 ; Deuteronomy 23:17 ; Job 36:14 ; Judges 19 ; 1 Kings 14:24 ; 1 Kings 15:12 ; 2 Kings 23:7 ; Hoseah 4:14 ; Hoseah 6:10 ; Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 [arsenokoites-“male/beds”= male prostitution, not “males/bed” or homosexuality.] 1 Timothy 1:9-11 [arsenokoites-“male/beds”= male prostitution, not “males/bed,” or homosexuality.])

      Therefore, under the Old Covenant, male/male intercourse was a to’evah because it was a direct practice in idol worship and pagan gang-rape. It should be noted that the book of Romans does NOT state that same-gender sex is forbidden under the New Covenant, but only describes a historical account of the Romans who abandoned worshiping God to worship idols – consequently engaging in shrine prostitution. Nowhere still does the Bible condemn any monogamous committed same-gender relationship or love. So even if to’evah was not always exclusive to idolatrous ritual, there is plenty of evidence that same-gender sex in the Bible was cultic in nature, so it cannot be compared to modern same-gender monogamy.

      I hope this answers your question adequately. Please let me know if you have any other questions. May God bless you for your longing to search for the truth of His Word.
      -Moanti

  16. Thanks for the link Angela… One of these days when I have some rare free time, I’ll have to leave a comment on this page with some more thoughts from my research that the author doesn’t touch upon…

  17. Angela says:

    What doesn’t shakab can also mean consent sex

  18. Angela says:

    Sorry can’t shakab also mean consent sex

    • Hi Angela. That’s a good question. When shakab means sex (sometimes it means to sleep, lie down, relax, die, etc.) it is in the context of non-consensual or forced sex, coerced sex or sex masked with some form of deception… The only instances it wrongfully appears to be consensual sex are using the other word-use of shakab to mean “lay down” or “bed,” not sexual intercourse. We know this because another word for sex is used right next to it… I have gone over every single verse that uses “shakab” in a sexual context here: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/thou-shalt-not-lie-with-a-man-exploring-the-sexual-use-of-the-hebrew-word-shakab-to-lie-with-in-scripture/

      It should answer your questions to see them all in context. 🙂

      • Angela says:

        Doesn’t it also matter what shakab is connected

      • Yes, because shakab has multiple meanings, one must look at the context as well as other surrounding words to see what meaning is to be derived. That’s why for example, a verse like Leviticus 20:19 might be confusing… It reads “And whosoever lieth (shakab) carnally (shekabah) with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed , nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death , because she was not free .” The “shakab” in this case literally means “lying down” because the word next to it, “shekabah,” means sex. So it is shakab shekabah, or “lies down for sex.” If “shakab” were to mean sex, then the verse would be repetitive and say “and whosoever sex sex.” See what I mean? Check out the link I gave you and it will explain each one of its sexual uses. Ok, I’m really going to bed now. 😉 Have a great night and thanks for your questions!
        -Moanti

    • The first link can be easily argued by everything I have written above (read for clarification and click on external links for more.) The only aspect I don’t get into above is how the author asserts that there is speculation against the existence of shrine prostitution. This is due to supposed “lack of physical evidence” (i.e. archeological fossils) WITHIN the shrine buildings themselves. There is no question that the practice existed at least outside of the temple site, but the intention was still the same; to have sex for the sake of worship of an idol/false god. The evidence we see of shrine prostitution is in a vast amount of written literature, including the Bible. Also we see it portrayed in ancient art… But because we don’t find fossils of sex within idol shrines (the ones we have uncovered), this is the argument against it? How can we physically judge someone’s intention for having sex after they have died? Those who are arguing against its existence are trying to say that it was fictional rather than historical. If we question the existence of shrine prostitution as a whole, we question the truth reliability of Scripture because clearly the Bible speaks of this practice (especially in 1 And 2 Kings), as do many other historical writings in major detail. So those who argue against the existence of shrine prostitution are not taking the Bible as historical fact. What do you believe?

      The second link argues more for what is “natural” under creation and asserts that male and female were the first humans to be together, therefore all should be straight. This is a weak argument and limited viewpoint because God’s creation is abundant with much variation. What about the person born with 2 sets of male/female genitals or born with male chromosomes in a female body or vise versa? Who are they allowed to morally marry? Secondly the author goes into what laws would be carried over from the Old Testament; which are supposed to be ceremonial laws or moral laws… Let it be known that no distinction of this is actually made within Scripture, so it’s your best guess or assertion as to which is what. The bottom line in my view of Scripture is that “sin” is an act contrary to bestowing love. God is love and love is all that the law demands. To act in harm towards self or others is to sin because it goes against love therefore acts against God. How that is interpreted depends on each person. Going against a personal conviction is harmful to the self. More obviously, offending another person by placing restrictions or imposing what is contrary to their conviction is harmful to that person. When we willfully know we are harming ourself or others, we are not acting in love. So deviating from harm is to flee from sin. With this in mind, how is a God-centered monogamous same-gender relationship a sin? I see Biblical heterosexual marriage as a blueprint for same-sex couples. The Word came first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Likewise, I see that the elements of what makes up a marriage (to love monogamously for life) came first to the heterosexual, then to the homosexual… I could go on and on.. But for now I will stop because I am unfortunately feeling sick tonight and need to get some rest. I hope this gave you more clarity. Thanks again!
      -Moanti

      • Angela says:

        Thank You. Hey I was wondering doesn’t it make clear that Sabbath and many of the Mosaic Law has ended

  19. Yes Angela, much of the laws in the Old Testament have been abolished after Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. It does not mean that we are encouraged to sin, but rather we are forgiven for our transgressions through accepting Jesus as the blood sacrifice for our sins. Before Jesus came, people had to attempt to follow all of these laws, and each time they broke them they had to sacrifice an animal. It was clear that no human man could fulfill all the commandments in the Law. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, in that He was able to abide by every rule set by God (not by man) and perfected it by showing that the whole Law of God encompassed bestowing love and forgiveness. Once the Law was fulfilled, He became our perfect blood sacrifice that washes away all sins. After this was fulfilled, God made a New Covenant with His people. We are taught that the most important thing is to accept Jesus’ sacrifice and follow what He taught, which is to love God and show love to everyone around us. As we are told, “love is all that the Law demands,” so to bestow love in our actions is to flee from sin. We all still stumble and fall into the error of sin, but thankfully The Lord is faithful to forgive us. The old laws were made for the need for a savior, not for salvation. “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” -Romans 8:1 We must always remember that it is by grace that we are saved through faith, and not saved by the good works of ourselves. We uphold the law of love to show our obedience and love to God, but it is through the sacrifice of Jesus that we are saved by God’s grace. We are made righteous in the eyes of God only through the final perfect blood sacrifice of Gods’ only begotten Son. Without this sacrifice, even the most righteous human would not be spotless from sin. Our very nature makes us unworthy to God. We desperately needed a Savior to help us be worthy. Because Jesus was conceived of God, He is the only perfect sacrifice and Savior. With this gift of salvation through grace in our faith, we will one day be united with God. All sin will be destroyed and we will be in the presence of The Lord forever. Thank God for His loving grace!

  20. jjduncan2 says:

    “Many theologians argue that arsenokoites clearly means homosexual because “the words are taken directly from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13!” What they wont tell you or have failed to realize is that the word-pair “arsen” and “koitai” is found 37 other times in the Greek Old Testament without any possibility of meaning gay sex. Due to this, their argument is invalid.”

    Wouldn’t it be true that it wouldn’t matter how else the term was used elsewhere if that WAS how it was used in the text Paul quoted? If a word has multiple definitions, but one clear definition in the text I quote, doesn’t that clarify in what sense I mean it?

    What are these alternate uses of the term that cannot refer to gay sex? Elsewhere in the post, I saw the phrase being used in a quote referencing husbands doing it with mothers, daughters, wives, etc. If it refers to anal sex as an act, rather than specifically anal sex between homosexuals, isn’t that still a problem for the “gay Christian view”? If the ACT is what is rejected, why does it matter if that act is performed by a heterosexual or homosexual pair? When you quote John the Faster, do you think that he would reject husbands having anal sex with their wives as disgusting and unbiblical, but wouldn’t have a problem with two men performing the same act?

    If it is clear to you that arsen koitai CANNOT refer to consensual homosexual acts, that begs the question what DOES it mean. If it means any anal sex regardless of the gender and sexuality of the participants, which is what it sounds like John the Faster is talking about, then you arrive at the same problem you started with.

    • Hi there Josh,
      I appreciate your comments and reflections. I wanted to respond to you about a few things. You said: “Wouldn’t it be true that it wouldn’t matter how else the term was used elsewhere if that WAS how it was used in the text Paul quoted? If a word has multiple definitions, but one clear definition in the text I quote, doesn’t that clarify in what sense I mean it?” I would have to agree with you on that one, if the text Paul quoted was in fact clear and obvious. As a reminder, here are the two instances that Paul uses the word arsenokoites: 1 Timothy 1:9-11, “law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and arsenokoites and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching” and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakos nor arsenokoites, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” So if we are going to base the definition on the context of what Paul presents in these verses alone, we would come up confused, as this obviously presents a list of sins that have no connection to each other. Secondly, rather than try to conclude a definition for arsenokoites from random Bible verses, why not look at the root words themselves? We have arsen (male) and koites (beds.) If we put them together we have male-beds. Notice that it is NOT males-bed (2 men in a bed) but male-beds (1 man in multiple beds.) This does not seem to be referring to homosexual sex, but rather promiscuity. As stated above, other translations have come to the conclusion that arsenokoites is referring to a male prostitute (man in many beds) which makes more sense than a male having sexual intercourse with a second male. Third, the way in which arsen and koites relates to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is not because they are paired in the verse as a word, but rather in close proximity. However, the word “koites” is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 nor 20:13, but rather it’s singular form as “koitai” or bed. Let me show you: “You shall not lie with a male (arsen) as you lie (koitai) with a female; it is an abomination.” “If there is a man who lies with a male (arsen) as those who lie (koitai) with a female, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” As a side note, the word “lie with” (Hebrew- miskab) in these verses is commonly just meaning “bed.” Also, there is no Hebrew words used in this verse for “as with” (a female). Although the Hebrew words exist and could have been used, there is no actual comparative language in the text to say that a man is lying with a man like a man would lie with a woman. But as one can see in the article above, it could be that these Leviticus verses are referring to forced or coerced sex and/or male prostitution which was performed for the sake of idol worship during these times.

      You asked “What are these alternate uses of the term that cannot refer to gay sex?” I believe that the above explanation as male prostitution (or a promiscuous male) is the best and most widely excepted as an alternative translation. But if we go by looking at the words arsen and koitai in close proximity (which is hardly a reliable method to derive meaning), here are a few examples. Take of them what you will: “Now therefore, kill every male (arsen) among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying (koitai) with him.” (Numbers 31:17) “But all the young girls who have not known man (arsen) by lying (koitai) with him keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:18) “This is what you shall do: every male (arsen) and every woman that has lain (koitai) with a male (arsen) you shall devote to destruction.” (Judges 21:11) “And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man (arsen) by lying (koitai) with him, and they brought them to the camp.” (Judges 21:12) If we were to derive meaning of arsenokoites from these verses alone, perhaps one would somehow connect it to killing women who weren’t virgins. I obviously don’t believe this is the case.

      You mentioned the quote from John the Faster and believe that it seems he is talking about anal sex. I’m really not certain what he meant in the text, but it would be quite strange to be speaking so specifically about a man having anal sex with his foster sisters, mothers, daughters, etc. Perhaps if he just said his wife, then maybe. But could it be that the man he speaks of is working as a male prostitute? If it is in the context of performing sex acts for the sake of idol worship, then it could be plausible that the man could even be having sex with these people near of kin in ritual sex acts. I am not sure. Either way, the meaning of arsenokoites isn’t clear enough to say we know for certain what it means. There is too much debate to say that we know for a fact that it means homosexual, especially considering this is a new translation less than a century old.

      Lastly, you said “If it means any anal sex regardless of the gender and sexuality of the participants, which is what it sounds like John the Faster is talking about, then you arrive at the same problem you started with.” I agree with you if in fact it does mean anal sex… But then this begs the question, what about lesbians who would not be biologically capable of this act of anal sex? How then can we include all “homosexuality” in this category if women with women are incapable of fitting this category? The fact that arsenokoites has “male” (not mankind which could include women) in the word shows in and of itself that we cannot assume that it means all gay people.

      Despite these debates, I think it’s important to zoom out from the text of Scripture and look at the full message as a whole. We see that God created humankind and we fell into sin. God loved us so much that He sent His Son to be the blood sacrifice for our sins. Those who accept Him are promised to be saved. It is said many times in Scripture that if we love God and others, we are living as we should. Looking at the act of sin as a whole, we see that it is always an act which harms self or others. But love cannot harm. Obviously we see that the Bible gives many examples of marriage that are between a man and woman. We all know that homosexuals make up a very small portion of the population, so the fact that we are not (or seldom) mentioned in Scripture isn’t very surprising. But could it be that heterosexual marriage in Scripture is a blueprint for homosexual couples as well? Biblical marriage is a God-centered committed monogamous union. Just as the Word came first to the Jew, then to the Gentile, could it be that marriage (as a God-centered monogamous commitment) came first to the heterosexual, then to the homosexual? It’s something to contemplate. Thank you again Josh. I welcome any more comments or questions. May God bless you in all that you do so that glory may be given to Him always!
      -Moanti

      • TREVOR says:

        not being judgmental at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…..just trying to lead you all to the truth 2 timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts. like you said in the aforementioned pray for decrement and for JESUS TO HELP and ask to be baptized by the HOLY SPIRIT. LOVE YOU ALL.

      • Trevor,
        Thank you for your words. I understand that you believe you are not being judgmental and I truly believe your heart is pure in trying to save others. Without judgment, you are insinuating that the translation I have presented is false doctrine. As you have reminded me and as I have previously stated, praying for discernment is the key. I do not feel that 2 Timothy 4:3 applies to the above verses, as this has not been shared to “satisfy lust.” There is quite a difference between love and lust. (I will state more on this on my response to your next comment.) I have prayed for discernment on this issue and have done much research into these translations. Thank you again for your words and I pray that you have taken the time to read all of the above information before making a hasty decision on the matter.
        Your Sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • TREVOR says:

        please never look away from scripture!!!! 2 timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

      • TREVOR says:

        also how do you explain this????genesis 2: 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

      • Hello again Trevor,
        I sincerely thank you for your words and questions. It’s not much of a surprise that The Lord made Eve for Adam, as she was a “suitable partner” for him. We can also see that The Lord has paired many married partners throughout the millennia, not creating a woman out of the rib of a man every time. Through time however, things have changed drastically. We can see historically in the Bible that incest was a suitable form of marriage due to the need for populating the earth. Once enough were achieved, incest was then condemned in Scripture. Next we see polygamy was a widespread practice in the Bible. Finally, once a suitable amount of population was achieved, we see that Jesus mentions a God-centered monogamous union between a man and wife. As we see from the beginning that Eve was a suitable partner for Adam, what then do we do with the person who has absolutely no capability to love the opposite gender? How can the opposite gender be a “suitable partner” for this person if they have no way to feel love for them? Instead, their “suitable partner” would be someone of the same gender for whom they can come together in pure love. As I have stated recently in previous comments, I believe that Biblical marriage is a blueprint for same-sex couples. Just as the Word came “first to the Jew, then to the Gentile,” I believe the blueprint for marriage as a God-centered monogamous union came first to the heterosexual, then to the homosexual. It is not surprising that we are not mentioned in Scripture, as we are a very small portion of the population. We don’t see hermaphrodites (those born with BOTH sex organs) mentioned in Scripture. Who are they allowed to marry??? Furthermore, if we tie same-sex unions to the course of humanity in regards to population, it would seem that the inability to procreate would be helpful in a world population of over 7 billon. The bottom line for me personally is that I do not possess the Spiritual gift of celibacy, and I am certain that The Lord has blessed my Christ-centered monogamous union with my wife. Remember, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28.)

  21. TREVOR says:

    not being judgmental at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…..just trying to lead you all to the truth 2 timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts. like you said in the aforementioned pray for decrement and for JESUS TO HELP and ask to be baptized by the HOLY SPIRIT. LOVE YOU ALL.

  22. TREVOR says:

    please never look away from scripture!!!! 2 timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

  23. Hannah says:

    Wow I came across this today…this stuff is really good, and an eye opener to people!
    I enjoyed reading it very much.
    Hannah 🙂

  24. Ieva says:

    The question of homosexuality and sin is something I have been struggling with myself, so I read your blog with keen interest, as I don’t want to go by assumptions and interpretations but really make an effort to seek the truth – within myself, by God’s Grace, and by seeking out different opinions.

    I was a Christian as a child, but when University came I drove away from Christian faith because of all the history that followed the New Testament (crusades, faith wars etc) and because it wasn’t considered ‘cool.’ However, recently God has in His grace restored my faith in Jesus and I am forever grateful to Him, the love for Him and all mankind seems to grow in me by day through prayer to Jesus to increase my love for Him.

    For, as my Mum once put it – if we truly follow the first commandment and love God with all our being, we will understand that we are all His children, equal in His love and that by hurting one another, by hating one another, we hurt Him whom we claim to love. So, if you truly follow the first commandment, you should not find it difficult to follow the second.

    I also realised that if all men acted like the early Christians – the martyrs, the ones whose faith in Christ and the Father defied death, the ones who followed the teachings of love and would not respond in violence to any provocation, any act of hatred or violence – there would be a lot more people believing in Jesus.

    Unfortunately, when we think of Christianity, a lot of the time the first thing that comes to mind are self-righteous people, using God’s word to justify their pride and hate which they haven’t admitted in themselves as sin, repented and asked Jesus to help. When I read The New Testament properly, I was astonished that people who claim themselves Christians and speak of God hating certain groups of people, and judging these groups, could even exist… My only conclusion is that they have not read The New Testament, because love and not being judgmental, is mentioned so many times, it is impossible for a Christian who says they follow the Word of God, to hate or judge anyone.

    We should only judge ourselves – but even this, with care, remembering that sin can be covered by Jesus blood. And this is my conclusion, through my personal relationship with God and soul-searching by His Grace.

    I have always found the opposite sex attractive, but I developed bisexual urges a few years back. And I went on exploring them, and I wanted to explore more and more, thinking that if I was doing something wrong, then I was only harming myself alone, not God. And I have many gay and bisexual friends, and what I have seen in myself and in them, is that there are two types of homosexuality.

    1) Like mine – which is born out of the desire to ‘live fast and die young’ and expose your body to all kinds of lusts, and ignore the points about monogamy, seeing them as outdated and ancient teachings, not applicable to our times. To sleep with whoever you want and however often you want.

    Furthermore, here is something very insightful about sexuality, which I read in a book ‘The Wisdom of Andrew Carnegie’, much of which was inspired by The Bible. I recommend this book to anyone who would like to improve their finances or start a business! Look up Andrew Carnegie – he started as an extremely impoverished boy to become one of the wealthiest men in history.

    The Biblical teachings in the book are explained in a practical sense, showing how The Bible can not only teach one to love one’s fellow man, but also how to unleash one’s full potential, how to think about creating a successful business that cannot fail – by hard work, keeping in mind the benefits for humanity, trying to promote not oneself but one’s fellow man, and being humble and the servant of all. I am sidetracking now but it makes sense that the Creator of the Universe would create laws of nature that would reward those who follow his teachings in all areas of life. Please read it if you have a chance – it is truly inspirational, and glorifies God.

    So, what I read in this book, is that sexuality is a very powerful source of energy that needs some way of unleashing. I mean, God created sex for a reason. And so, if we engage in acts of immoral sexual behavior, polygamy and all the rest, we are sinning against God. But we must also remember that every sin harms not Him, but ourselves. We harm ourselves because, had we tried to get our sexual behavior under control, rather than let it control us, it would manifest itself in higher creativity, a more focused thinking, a sharper appetite for life.

    What I have noticed in my life, is that since not having multiple partners, and abstaining from sex until someone who I want to share my life with comes along, is that I have more energy and joy for life, my mind is more focused and at peace. And it makes logical sense – if you divert a source of energy into various outlets, it is far less powerful than if you focus all that source into a single direction or goal. I think it is very important, when abstaining from sin, to understand the practical benefits of not sinning, how it can lead to a richer and more enlightened life, how it can actually help in certain areas of life. Sinning is like ignoring instructions from your parents and doing them in spite, and only understanding in hindsight how different your life could have been, had you listened to them.

    So, my personal journey, is that bisexuality for me was just an excuse to immoral sexual behaviour, indulging in the senses, living for this life rather than being faithful in God and patient, and waiting for that special time when He would bring someone to me. And from looking at some homosexual dating sites, some profiles are only set up there to have casual sex. But equally, I have seen the same on straight dating sites.

    2) The second type of sexuality that I have come across in bisexuals and homosexuals, is pure love for one person, and one alone, and is no different to heterosexual relationships.

    To me, it feels wrong to place these two types of sexuality (as I have defined them above), into the same category. I also think that reconciliation to Jesus starts with repentance and admitting of sins in truth. Which means, admitting your true feelings and thoughts, however lustful they may be, because our God is the God of love and truth. He will love it if you are honest with Him, rather than entering heterosexual marriage with doubts about your sexuality.

    So, my personal journey is that, in my case, being bisexual, was a justification for behaving the way I wanted to, rather than what Christ wanted me to do. It was claiming my own body, not giving it up to Christ. I still find women attractive, but I honestly cannot imagine ever having a life-long relationship with a woman, so therefore if I was to act upon my urges, it would only be for a short fling, and thus a sin, which would not benefit my spiritual development. It would keep me grounded in flesh, rather than empower my spirit in Christ.

    But that is my story and everyone’s is different. Perhaps the question to ask yourself is not whether you are gay, bisexual, straight or transgender, but whether you are using this label to justify your sexual acts, or you are truly searching for a loving, monogamous relationship.

    Perhaps, this is what is meant by 2 Timothy 4:3 ‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts’ – if someone claims that God accepts homosexuals, just because the speaker wants to justify himself/herself when they have numerous partners, rather than try and restrain from immoral sexual acts. You could also apply this scripture to the aforementioned Crusades who changed the scripture to satisfy their lust for gold and power. There are many lusts, not only sexual!

    I am far from being a Bible expert, but in what I have read so far in the New Testament, I have not come across passages where Christ has mentioned homosexuals as being excluded from Heaven, or anyone who admits Jesus to be the Son of God, to be expelled from Heaven. Neither does it say to judge and condemn, but to love and forgive. I think whatever your personal journey is with God, you will feel if something you are doing feels wrong, so tell him about it in truth, admit that you cannot ask everything and ask Him for Guidance in Jesus. God wants us to be logical in our judgement, so please be aware (from personal experience) that if you state something without considering all points of view, with a scholarly perspective, you are not seeking knowledge, as instructed to us by God, but being self-righteous.

    When you speak about Christianity to anyone, especially non-christians, please weigh out whether you are saying something because you want to elevate and prove yourself in God’s eyes, or you are truly concerned for the soul of the person you are speaking to. Moanti, I believe you have the right intentions at heart, and have tonight inspired me to write this long essay which I hope you enjoy 🙂

    It is my hope and prayer, in Jesus name, that people at least give Christianity another chance. We have a lot of hard work to do, to change the image that the Crusades and God-hating people have done to the Gospel. Let’s set a good example, because when the true message of Christianity is explained, I always notice that people become thoughtful and choose to reconsider their opinions which is what God wants us to do – it isn’t about us and proving to others that we are right, we are already saved. It is about changing our behaviour, with the aid of His Holy Spirit, to make sure that people hear the Word of God and glorify Him.

    Remember – Galatians 5:22-23 ‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.’

    This means that when the message of the New Testament is properly explained, and we testify to it by our behaviour, there will be few people who will be left unaffected, because how can anyone hate love, forgiveness and eternal life? 🙂

    Ieva

    • Dear Ieva,
      Thank you for your insightful words. I do appreciate anyone who shares their personal thoughts and stories on here, especially when it can benefit people to re-examine their true call to faith to love God and love others in action. I also appreciate your honesty in realizing that your bisexual nature was more to satisfy lust than to form a monogamous bond. I guess your “two types of homosexuality” can be simplified into two types of all sexuality (all forms of sexual orientation.) perhaps more than “types,” they represent the expression or behavioral action. Whatever sexual orientation one might be, how we use our sexuality is what seems to decipher it between sin and love. The sin type (or expression, rather), seeks to self-satisfy even if it harms oneself or others. Lust leads to promiscuity which leads to selfish acts that do not glorify God but rather ourselves. In this process, our self-reward is fleeting satisfaction, but long-term it is shame. The love type/expression seeks to edify another, fully and wholly. Love does no harm to another, and is the fulfillment of God’s law. At its best, a monogamous life-long commitment with God as the center and foundation is blessed. Love leads to monogamy which leads to selfless acts that glorify God by keeping the second commandment. When we practice love, their is no shame and the reward is never fleeting.

      On a side note, I think that sin is more than just a transgression against what God has commanded. This definition gives people the false allowance to judge others for their perceived wrongs as well as interpret what’s right by a variety of what constitutes personal standard. When we see sin only as something against God’s rules, we ignore rationality and are blind to looking for commonality. I feel that we humanize The Creator by acting as if His standard of right and wrong is only a personal choice or preference without a common decipherable basis. In simple terms, a human may despise the taste of onions but love the taste of chicken. The human may hate hiking but love bike riding. This is all personal preference without a common theme. If we made this person act as God, than onions and hiking would be sinful because “God said so.” I feel that many Christians see God in this human way in regards to His idea of sin. Under this, we can define what’s “good” and “bad” as “just because God said so.” When we truly search the heart of God for why sin is sin, we learn that God is consistent in His definition of sin. The consistent theme of sin comes down to one thing. From what I see under the New Covenant in Scripture (post-Old Testament), sin is simply an act contrary to bestowing love. God is love and love is all that the law demands. To act in harm towards self or others is to sin because it goes against love therefore acts against God. When we willfully know we are harming ourself or others, we are not acting in love and are accountable. So deviating from harm is to flee from sin, from what I see… With this is mind, the “second type” of homosexual/bisexual (as well as heterosexual) expression falls in line with bestowing love. If its basis is in love and not harm, than how can we define it as sin? The problem is that most Christians that I have come across see all homosexuals/bisexuals falling under the first type of expression. They believe all are promiscuous and seek to satisfy their own lusts. This false judgment has caused the biggest division between gays and Christians aside from the confusion in the definition of sin described above.

      Okay, so now I guess I am writing an essay. Sorry if I got a bit off topic from what you were saying, but this is just what came to me. I liked everything that you had to say and invite you to share any more thoughts you might have… May God bless you in everything that you do!
      -Moanti

      • Ieva says:

        Dear Moanti

        Thank you for your reply and the invitation to share any other thoughts.

        I have come away from reading this and I have thought logically, basing my logic on the guidance of The Bible and the Holy Spirit about the things that you have been writing here. It is not for my sake (because I actually don’t benefit in any way by writing this since I will most likely be frowned upon) but for the love that Jesus askes us all to share with each other and that is to help one another and guide in truth.

        What your whole blog is ignoring is one fundamental aspect of Christian faith – that The Word of God cannot lie for ‘in Him there is no darkness at all’. That means no sin, and lieing is sin, therefore if you are Christian, you would agree that God is holy and Almighty and he would never compromise on making a world-wide known version of His Word, King James Bible, to teach something that is not true. And if you continue to sin, you cannot claim to have the Holy Spirit in you, and therfore are leading others astray.

        Another thing that testifies against you having The Holy Spirit is the imagery you have used, even if it be for reference only. God is holy, and The Holy Spirit is holy, therefore He would never illustrate a point by using images that are not of him but of the devil.

        I will pray for you to make a reassessment and come to faith on His terms, not your own. It is very difficult, I understand that, and I really say this from my heart, but as Christians we also know that our reward is in Heaven, and by stopping to sin on Earth, we earn our reward there. We can only enter Heaven if we have the Holy Spirit so please humble yourself before the Father and ask for His great mercy to surrender your life to Him. He is love and whatever reason for homosexuality being a sin, we have to trust Him to know what is best for us – we are only human and cannot know everything.

        I am so sorry to write this, and I understand that it will upset, but I couldn’t support something that in my heart I felt did not come from God, for we are to tell the truth in love. I am not saying this to judge or to say that I am righteous in all that I do, but just to remind to always keep our eyes on Heaven, not this world.

        Ps. Sin is not only acts that are contrary to bestowing love. Sin is first and foremost refusing God (if we deny Christ, we cannot inherit The Kingdom of Heaven) and the next sin is ignoring His will, as stated in The Bible. If we say we accept Christ by speaking it and believing in our heart that He is The Only Son of God, and yet we don’t follow his will, we have not fully accepted Him and therefore are committing the sin of not accepting God, because as said in 1 John 3:6 ‘No-one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or know him.’ And as Jesus himself said ‘The Scripture cannot be broken.’

        Truly your sister in Christ,
        Ieva

      • Ieva,
        I am disparaged by your words and it grieves my soul. I find it peculiar that your first comment was against judgment, yet you have judged the greatest thing of all- which is to question the Holy Spirit. When the Pharisees tested Jesus and claimed that His works came from the power of the Devil, He gave the strongest warning all in Scripture. I would never dare to question anyone by blatantly saying that the Holy Spirit was not in them when they claimed to love God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I believe it’s treading on dangerous ground to make such an assumption, especially based upon pictures on a website, some of which demonstrate the sins that were the condemned acts in Scripture rather than being gay as a whole. I am truly sorry that you found them offensive, as of course it was used for reference purposes of the topics spoken, not an endorsement of such acts.

        Secondly, I have not ignored that God is Holy and Almighty and I absolutely believe that His Word is 100% truth. I have stated that I am not saying that the Bible is wrong, but that we may be reading it incorrectly. What I mean by this is that people (humans, not God) have come away with translations based on culturally-based common assumption without looking further to original text and/or the intent of the author. The Bible has been misused to condemn many various types of people and acts since it’s beginning, and this does not mean that the Word itself has changed. People have changed it’s meaning by ignoring the context of Scripture. Case and point; homosexuality. This word being inserted into Scripture in 1946 which makes our modern readers have a different perception on the meaning of the TRUE ORIGINAL words used (before the King James Bible). Among many other uses, for several centuries the King James translation “abusers of themselves with mankind” was thought of as masturbation by the Christian church, not homosexuality. My point is that the Word of God does not change, but people’s perceptions and translations do. God does not lie, but people are not infallible to error.

        Third, I absolutely agree 100% with your “P.S.” statements. “Sin is first and foremost refusing God (if we deny Christ, we cannot inherit The Kingdom of Heaven) and the next sin is ignoring His will, as stated in The Bible. If we say we accept Christ by speaking it and believing in our heart that He is The Only Son of God, and yet we don’t follow his will, we have not fully accepted Him and therefore are committing the sin of not accepting God….” What I have said about sin being “the absence bestowing love” is not mutually exclusive to your true statements. Of course I believe that the biggest sin of all is to reject God, His Son and reject doing His Will. It seems that you have not spent the time reading all of my words in its entirety because I make this blatantly apparent in my article above. If you read my comment in context, I am making reference to Christians who ignore the common basis for all sin acts, which IS the absence of bestowing love. God is love. If one rejects God, they are not bestowing love to God. If one rejects God’s Son, they are not bestowing love to God. If one ignores God’s Will, they are not bestowing love to God. So as you can see, the fundamental basis for sin still acts contrary to bestowing love. Does it not? I have made it clear time and time again that our only salvation is through the blood of Jesus Christ. I was NOT saying that people just have to show love and they will go to Heaven. I was only defining the common theme in all sin, which is an absence of love. Do you still disagree? I was not defining salvation in my comment, only comparing commonalities of all sin. Being gay and expressing that love in a Christ-centered monogamous life-long relationship contradicts sin as an act contrary to bestowing love. It would be the only sin which contradicts this common basis for all sin acts. So either it is the one exception and it is a sin, or it logically shows that one may want to take a second look at the claim for it being a sin.

        As far as doing God’s Will, perhaps this will make it clear: “28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:28-40. So the Pharasees asked Jesus what we must do to do the works of God. Jesus clearly answers that one must believe in the One who was sent. God’s Will is that we believe in His Son. So to do God’s Will is what? To believe. The actions that follow when we have the Holy Spirit are to bestow love to God and others. Notice that Jesus says we as believers will in no way be cast out from Him. Who as a human has the power to exclude a believer from the Father?

        I can absolutely respect that it is your personal conviction not to be in a monogamous life-long same-gender relationship. This is not your call. But to say that just because your basis for your same-sex attractions was rooted in lust means that it makes all same-gender relationships sinful, lust or not, should be questioned. There is too much evidence to the contrary to dismiss it without deep exploration and prayer for discernment.

        Lastly, I noticed that you signed your name with “truly your sister in Christ.” With you questioning my identity as a Christian and believing my continued sin as a homosexual makes me unable to have the Holy Spirit within me, than how can you call me your sister in Christ if you claim I do not have Christ? Do you use the word “truly” to show that you are truly a Christian and believe I am not? Perhaps I shouldn’t even ask. Either way, I don’t doubt the authenticity of your faith, and I would wish that you wouldn’t doubt mine just because we share different paths on our walk with Christ. (Note of clarification to avoid confusion: When I say “different paths,” I do not mean a different way to salvation. I simply mean we are individual people with different lives, both heading towards the same goal.)
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • P.S. To Ieva:
        Just one more note here so there’s no confusion. When I say “love,” I define it Biblically by 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” Note that this is the Greek word ἀγάπη (agapē) which is the same word in Romans 13:10 “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of The Law.” So if love [ἀγάπη (agapē)] is the fulfillment of The Law, we must assume that to go against love is sin. Therefore, sin is the act of not bestowing love. Do you see where I get this train of thought??? I still invite your thoughts and insights.

      • Ieva says:

        Hi both,

        It is difficult for me to have written what I have written and I truly understand if you disagree but I don’t want to go into it any more personally because it is upsetting me – I am not here to judge so if I carry on writing, then that would make me judgemental. Everyone’s journey is personal, and we have to trust God that He is love and would not want us to follow mistranslations. The Bible I have is the King James Bible, which was given to me by a believer who has the Holy Spirit and has explained to me its teachings in a light that not many have, where they all make logical sense. I know this claim may seem ridiculous as to determining which Bible version to follow to anyone else, so I understand if you won’t believe me. I will delete myself from the mailing list because it is emotionally difficult for me to talk any more on this subject, but even so I stand by both things I’ve said – that there are two types of sexuality and people should not put them both in the same category. I also stand by that it is wrong to judge and condemn as I have seen many so-called Christians do. If my next claim is false, then it will not resonate with anyone who has The Holy Spirit. I really wish the best for everyone and I did not say it to make myself sound righteous in any way, because Lord knows I have committed many sins myself but He has helped me. If I am wrong in what I have said, my judgement will come from God who is my highest authority and I believe guided me to write this despite my mind knowing what the responses would be like, and was not for my joy that I wrote it.

        Please accept my love and truly my intention was not to upset anyone. I think there is one great thing about your blog, Moanti, and that is the encouragement for anyone to seek God, despite their sexuality, and to feel welcomed to Him and His great love which is what we all can learn from 🙂

        God bless you all in Jesus name.

        Ieva

      • Ieva,
        I do appreciate your sincerity and conviction. Nothing bothered me about what you wrote except for insinuating that the Holy Spirit did not reside in me and questioning my identity as a follower of Christ. Ironically, the thing you disagreed with most had nothing to do with a direct response to what you wrote. I felt led to shed light to the importance of love (the word is written as “charity” in the KJV) and the consequence of a lack of love. I didn’t expect such a negative reaction. But none the less, I recognize and accept your heart-felt apology and I hope you can also forgive me for offending you in any way and the images on the website. (Such images were carefully chosen artistic depictions of the content, some ancient in nature to demonstrate historical connection – not an endorsement of darkness.) I’m sorry this topic upsets you too much to continue the conversation. Know that I accept your love and welcome you to come back anytime that you want to re-examine this with an open heart.
        -Moanti
        P.S. Romans chapter 14 was eye opening to me in seeing other Christians’ perspectives and the differences in the personal nature of our faith walk as well as convictions. If anything, I hope you’re able to read this passage.

  25. Ieva says:

    Seems I have made an error in this passage ‘so tell him about it in truth, admit that you cannot ask everything and ask Him for Guidance in Jesus’ – I meant to write ‘so tell him about it in truth, admit that you cannot KNOW everything and ask Him for Guidance THROUGH Jesus’

    Thanks 🙂

    • Angela says:

      Leva if being gay is a sin than why do we see animals do it? Why do we see DNA having an affect. Also Lev 18:21 is talking about temple at zera which is child in many translations but it commonly is semen don’t give semen to molech. Deut doesn’t repeated this in lev

  26. Ieva says:

    Moanti, I really can’t appologise enough… I am so mortified at what I wrote, and I ask God for forgiveness, especially for justifying my own judgements by invoking the Holy Spirit… that’s really awful and I guess I have learned the first lesson of Christianity of not judging and labelling things as black and white even though life is not that simple… Really, who am I to say who has The Holy Spirit and who hasn’t? I am completely ashamed and I hope you accept my appology… Everyone’s journey is personal and life becomes much easier when we don’t judge… So once again I am sorry and I thank you for your kind understanding, I should have just described my own experience and stop there because that’s all we can ever do. Maybe to make the best out of this situation, my shameful example can serve as an illustration for other Christians of how not to behave towards someone… Thank you for putting up with it – this will be a major lesson for me too!

    Lots of love, Ieva

    • Ieva,
      I’m really glad you wrote me back. I was worried you wouldn’t get my last comment since you said you were taking me off your mailing list. You are very sweet and I fully accept your apology!!! Don’t be hard yourself. The Lord is faithful to forgive and I am joyfully called to do the same with love in my heart. I am really happy and excited that you wrote back and we have been able to come to a resolution! Thank you again so much!!!!

      I was re-reading all of our comments between us last night and realized that my first comment back to you may have come across as a disagreement. I want you to know that I was truly just elaborating on your theory (of 2 different types of sexuality) and totally agree 100% with everything you said there. Sometimes when I write comments on here, I am aware that others (other than yourself) will read it, and I felt these were things others needed to hear. I wasn’t preaching to you or condemning you for your acts of lust and I really want to say I’m sorry if you received it in that way. Please forgive me if you did! I think it’s amazing that you have the insight to see what you were doing was not Spiritually profitable and I was just further describing the distinction between same-gender lust and love. I thank you also for your courage to apologize, as I know it can be hard, but I respect you fully for your insight and humble apology. *Holy Hugs* 🙂

      Personally, once I came to the conviction that Christ-centered monogamous relationships were not sin, I used to have a really hard time with gay Christians (not you!) who thought it was a sin and that all were called to celibacy. I also felt bothered by heterosexual Christians who felt it was a sin. Then The Lord led me to Romans 14 and I was astonished and enlightened at realizing that Christians (gay, bisexual and straight alike) can have different convictions on certain issues, yet still be fully accepted as doing right in the eyes of God. I learned that as long as something is done in love and in reverence to God with thanksgiving, The Lord accepts both believers even when their personal convictions are not always the same. Also I learned it’s important not to hinder or put a stumbling block in front of others to make them break their opposing conviction. One person may feel freedom in an area where another does not. Convictions are personal and not identical for everyone. I love this verse so much that I will share it here. I have the English standard version on my phone, so I will copy it from there, but encourage you also to read it in your King James Bible. I am sharing this to hopefully bring encouragement to you as it has for me. (Side note: I use the ESV because it was the only free Bible App that doesn’t use cellular data. I grew up with the King James Version, but often quote other translations on here because I find many modern readers have difficulty with the Old English Shakespearian language of the KJV, although I find it most eloquent. 🙂 My favorite form of Scripture is the interlinear Bible because I love to know the original language.)
      “1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
      2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
      3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
      4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
      5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
      6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
      7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
      8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.
      9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
      10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
      11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”
      12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
      13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
      14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
      15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
      16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
      17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
      18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
      19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
      20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.
      21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
      22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.
      23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans Chapter 14).

      To make it clear I want to note that I do not believe that this verse can be applied to every matter. I’m not at all saying that one person has liberty to sin and another does not. I am also not saying that truth is all relative, but rather that convictions are personal and not always identical among each believer. One person feels convicted that one thing is a sin for them and another has no conviction against it. Both are not to quarrel on the matter, force one to act against their conviction or even hinder one from what they feel convicted is blessed by God for themselves. It shows to me that our walk with Christ is not black and white. We do have some different convictions and I think it is best to explore it personally with God rather than assuming it is the same for all or should be the same or it’s against God. I also recognize that the issue of sexuality is much bigger than what someone feels they can and cannot eat or what day is Holy or not Holy. This is why I feel the importance of this verse: When I asked God for help with my judgment against other Christians who disagreed, I was instantly led to this verse and it “clicked” so much for me that I can see a comparison. It humbled me and has produced good Spiritual fruit to be more loving towards those who condemn me. I feel that the application of the verse can be applied well when dealing with fellow believers with differing opinions.

      I believe that the body of Christ is made up of different parts and we have different Spiritual gifts. We are all unique and have our parts to play to give glory to God. Although we play different parts, we work as a whole to the same end. I have come to realize in Scripture that celibacy is a Spiritual gift given by God and no Spiritual gift can be forced, but only received. If one does not possess the gift, how can they go on pretending? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:8, “8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn in lust.” With this in mind, how will a homosexual marrying the opposite sex help satisfy them or their spouse? Furthermore, how can the heterosexual marriage between a gay and straight spouse be edifying to God when the gay spouse has no capability of loving their opposite sex spouse which may leave them feeling lonely and unloved? This is my personal conviction not to marry heterosexually… Yet I know many do, despite this. For those that do and are content in their marriage, I see it as Holy because they did it for the sake of obeying their convictions and do it in thanks to God. But for those who do it out of fear of judgment or punishment, we know that “there is no fear in love” (reference 1 John 4:18) and one should re-assess their motives. Is it to bring glory to God in their convictions or is it to selfishly attempt to avoid judgment while making their heterosexual spouse miserable? When it is the latter, I believe it becomes an unloving act.

      My personal conviction is that Biblical heterosexual marriage is a blueprint for same-sex couples. It’s not a surprise that same-gender marriage is not mentioned in Scripture since we represent such a small portion of the human population. Likewise, God never spoke of hermaphrodites (those born with both male and female genitals) in Scripture. Who then are they allowed to marry? Just as the Message came first to the Jews, than to the Gentiles, I feel that the blueprint for marriage (as a God-centered monogamous life-long partnership) came first to the heterosexual (majority), then to the homosexual (minority.) Let it be reminded that Scripture (especially the Gospels) is clear that the majority of ancient believers felt that only Jews were accepted by God and Gentiles were totally excluded. This was a wide belief and only few believers came to the realization that Gentiles were accepted as well if they loved God. This demonstrates that the “majority” in the God-believing community are not always correct. What I have come to believe in this matter is to examine the fruit of such claims. Does it bear good Spiritual fruit or bad Spiritual fruit? From what I see, condemning gays from believing bears bad fruit, while loving them and encourage them to come to God as they are bears good fruit.

      These are just my personal convictions, which may be different from yours, and that’s okay. I gladly share them as an encouragement to all who struggle and can find encouragement and growth to bring Glory to God! Thank you so much again for your words Ieva. I love you as my sister in Christ and enjoy fellowship with you. Please write to me any time and I will continue to keep you in my prayers. Please let me know if you need anything at all or have any prayer requests.
      -Moanti

  27. Top Gun says:

    “Lean not on your own understanding”

    I come with peace and try my best to put myself in your shoes and I’m still learning. I take no credit in what I’m about to say because I’ve come across two people (yes insignificant but both has, not surprisingly, the same revelation) who open you eyes to the power and secret of the Kingdom of God. You know that saying that David was a man after the heart of God, I’ve only met (personally) a handful of people that would come close to fit that decription.

    But I’ve also come across a person online who has challenged my faith and of course when I read about his daily relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and the wisdom in his words that he writes…I envy him. I long to have the same kind of relationship. I’m not talking about one that we take time to pray and read the bible. I’m talking about the relationship he has daily where he could ask anything and his answer would come instantly. Where he waits for what the Lord asks him to do next in that day.

    That my friend without a doubt is the power of the kingdom of God. That was the norm in the book of Acts and the time of Paul. People guided every second of the day by the Holy Spirit. There are very few far and between who have this normal relationship with the Lord. That is it. Those of faith mentioned in the bible did not go ahead of God and assumed and did what they thought He wanted them to do. No they waited for instructions.

    Anyway back to topic. The gentleman or shall I say the man of God and other person, a woman infact, both had the same message about homosexuality. It is eye opening, when they reconcile the text, from Genesis to revelation, how it all fits and gels perfectly. (excuse my lack of decription).

    the last third of the first chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans details the sequence of degradation. First, those who deny the existence of God turn to idolatry, which is evinced in our day as wanton consumerism, materialism, and celebrity obsession. Second, they concoct theories with the imprimatur of whatever authorities they can co-opt in order to justify their denial of God, which is clearly seen in postmodern rationalism and scientism. Third, women “change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burn in their lust one toward another.” Why should this be so? That is answered with the answer to another question: What is the first commandment that God gave the man and woman before they were even given bodies? “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”
    The serpent’s tactics have not changed. This is an attack against the seed. Monsanto has extended this into agriculture through plants which bear no seed. This principle is now being forced into acceptance in humanity by the powers and principalities. The opposite of straight is crooked and twisted, not gay.

    The serpent is attacking the family of God. Remember when Jesus said no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless one is born of water and of Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You are born from the womb but you have to be born from above to become God’s child. When you reject the nature of God when you reject the fact that God is a family (Ephesians 3:14-15). We have a Father in Heaven and the Spirit that gives birth to us. Along with the Firstborn (Jesus Christ) (Colossians 1:15) and other believers we are the family of God. Everyone in this structure in the family of the Living God come together and give each other love, adoration, respect and power. No one is denied power in the family of God. If a child of God, we encourage and raise them up and when they’re ready we give them power, raise them up like eagles.

    No one is chopped of and denied a place or not needed in the family of God. See when we seek rightousness we have to conform to it. Jesus revealed the family of God. He told us we have a Father in Heaven and aslo the Spirit who gives birth to us into the Kingdom of God. My brothers and sisters are believers in Christ, born of the same Spirit. We answer to the Firstborn of God because He has been given all authority by our Father. Jesus Christ goes to the head of the family and pleads for mercy on our behalf.

    Yeah my eyes were wide open when this was revealed to me. The very nature of the biblical family, the family of God was revealed when the Firstborn of God came to earth. Ask a theologian who the Holy Spirit is and they will say “He….”. I’m not sure whether that’s the general assumption but ask yourself this, if God created all man to His image then would a woman be of God’s image and nature aswell? Of course! God’s Spirit is within man and woman.

    Back to the serpent Genesis 3:14-15 “….I will place emnity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers…”

    This is consistent with: Revelation 12:1-6, Rev 12:13-17

    The womb is being attacked as seen in Romans 1. Men have taken away the need for women. This is the serpents doing. He is lying to us about who we are in Christ. The family of God. Look to Jesus. He has given us the picture of what God’s family is like. How we should conduct ourselves, love, be righteous. This is who the child of God is. We follow the example set by the Firstborn. We answer to our Father who is merciful, loving, just and righteous.

    Glory to God! He has lifted His Son above all! He opens my eyes and slowly brings me toward absolute righteousness. I will never again lean on my or man’s own understanding but only the Lords! May God guide you to truth Moanti.

    PS Thanks for letting me comment on your blog.

    • Hi there,
      I just wanted to say that I highly enjoyed your comment and am in agreement with all that you said. I just have one confusion. Due to the ambiguous nature of your writing, I am not sure if you were speaking in support or against homosexuality being a sin or not. The reason for this confusion is because I do not see anything that you said that would be blatantly in opposition to homosexuality and I think it could be taken either way depending on the readers context. I would very much like to know your conviction on this as well as the friends revelation that you spoke of… I would also like to elaborate on what you said and think it will be beneficial whatever your belief is on the topic. Note as well that I am aware that others read these comments, so I take this into consideration as I share what came to me. Nothing is meant to argue against what you have said, but only elaborate.

      Many have used the first command “to be fruitful and multiply” against gay people (note that I use the word “gay” as meaning someone who experiences exclusive same-gender romantic love and attraction.) This is generally stated because two members of the same gender cannot produce offspring of the same kin. This argument fails to consider that many gay people do have children, wether it be by a current or former heterosexual marriage, adoption, artificial insemination or surrogate pregnancy. But this is the least of it. Many use this command to multiply as applying to all modern Christians, failing to see that the command was exclusively given to the first couple (Adam and Eve) and Noah’s family after the flood. Population was of upmost importance in an empty world, but to the modern Christian, this is not directly commanded by God. What is often ignored is the first part of the command, before multiplying; which is to “be fruitful.” This is something that we do see throughout Scripture. To be fruitful is to bear good fruit. If we are to use “be fruitful and multiply” in our modern day, it would be to multiply fruitfulness.
      What good does it do to multiply people if they bear bad fruit? Quality over quantity is the target. As followers of Christ, we spread our fruits of the Spirit (reference Galatians 5:22,23) to all mankind and share the redemptive power of salvation. To multiply the amount of believers is to be fruitful. This goes far beyond physically bearing children. To those who are infertile or without offspring, Jesus has clearly upheld that they have a place in the Kingdom (reference Matthew 19:11,12). If bearing children were a command to modern believers, than to fail to do so would be a sin. Sin is a choice. An infertile couple doesn’t make a choice to be infertile, just as a gay couple doesn’t make a choice to be gay.

      I wanted to note something important here. After I read your comment, I prayed and waited on The Lord for what I should reply. Without conscious thought, I received the above message about the importance of fruitfulness. What became more incredible to me is this; without yet sharing aloud what had come to me, I decided to read your comment to my spouse several hours later. Immediately after reading, she received the same message from God about the importance of multiplying fruitfulness! This was surely confirmation that the Spirit is at work! Praise God!!!!!

      You shared some wonderful things about the family of God. The family of God is not a matter of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit. Satan attempts everything to cut this down – not a matter of our physical body – but of the soul. In addition to any attack on the womb or seed, Satan’s main intention is to destroy the soul of those in existence on the earth. He does not want our Spiritual fruitfulness to multiply. Scripture teaches us that our adversary prowls around us seeking someone to destroy (reference 1 Peter 5:8). His greatest objective is to attack the Spiritual growth of life rather than prevent a physical life from producing.

      The bottom line is that we are to be fruitful and multiply the Body of Christ. When a member of God’s family condemns a potential follower, it bears bad fruit. We are to be “fishers of men,” not hunters. Bestowing love is our bate that draws others to desire Christ. How can we win souls to Christ by shooting judgment at others? This is the hunters tactic and it leads others away from Christ. (Note that I write this for the benefit of all believers and do not see your words as judgmental.) Likewise, when God’s family opposes one another with contempt, it divides the family unity. To uphold unity in the family of God is to practice love above all; Love towards God first, and love towards others second (reference Mark 12:28-31.)

      Wether one believes homosexuality is a sin or not shouldn’t be the issue when sharing the Gospel. What is most important to emphasize is the redemptive power of the blood of Jesus who saves us. We are saved not by our own works, but saved by grace due to the great love of our Heavenly Father. Our only true righteousness is reflected by our full forgiveness in Christ. We will be made perfected on the last day when we receive our new Spiritual bodies all because of the loving sacrifice of the One who died in our place for our transgressions.

      I hope you were encouraged by this as I was so encouraged by what you shared. Please write back if you are able. May God bless you abundantly in all that you do!
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

  28. Top Gun says:

    Moanti,
    If I come across to you as condemning, forgive me and don’t be disheartened. God is willing to conform us to His righteousness. I don’t look down on people regardless of the sin they are in. I was a dog drowning in sin and living in lies. I was the worst of sinners. I always remind myself of this past, as a good thing, rejoicing in the power of God that pulled me up out of the darkness and called me to seek righteousness. Also note that I don’t see you as your sexuality, that’s only a small portion of who you are. I get many people who say that their sexuality is the be-all or end-all for them.

    I don’t speak these words to hurt or turn people away from the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ. I only speak because I tremble and shake (literally) when the righteousness of God is revealed to me. I tell you that the moment I step off the path of righteousness, I receive God’s discipline. I will know what I’ve done. Repenting, I would be reassured of His forgiveness. But His forgiveness would not come until my last hope and cry to Him. My humble and broken cry. I tell you that Jesus never gives up Hope for us, His mediation to the Father for us shows His love for us.

    I have no agender but the bible. When I first accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I didn’t know fully what it meant to repent and turn to Jesus. When Jesus came and called sinners into repentance, He didn’t condemn them into repentance. He taught us what it means. Looking at His teachings without any agender, He taught us to seek righteousness, the kingdom of God. In order to do that, we have to lose everything, and deny and die to self. Leave everything behind and follow Him.

    He called us to be slaves of righteousness. I, at the start, tried to justify a sin that wasn’t even mentioned in the bible to begin with but I was convicted when I gave my life to Jesus. But I went to websites that gave me false sense of ease, from the bible, about it so I went along with it, for about a month, I read through the bible to satisfy my conscience. But the Lord called out to me and said, “Why do you look at yourself and love yourself enough to keep doing this to me? Isn’t my life-giving water enough for you?” I was convicted badly. I couldn’t lie to myself anymore. So I repented but He wasn’t finished with me. He taught me to depend on Him.

    Now when I used the “be fruitful and multiply” sentence, I was using it to show how far the world has come since the first man and woman. Like I said Romans 1 shows us the degradation of righteousness in this world….from what was good to what is now. The veil was torn to those who wants to seek righteousness and live with righteousness. Maybe I should have said this in my previous comment (I was think about the length and me babbling on):

    From worshipping and walking with God to idols, From glorifying God the Creator to denying His exsistence. Finally the denial of God leading to the denial of His creation, and the purpose of His creation. (These are seen clearly in the world today. Deny God and you deny His creation)

    Like I said, the serpents tactics have not changed. Revelation confirms this. First in Genesis the serpent wanted to attack God’s soverignity, thus becoming the father of lies and a murderer. He literally killed creation by bringing sin into this world. his pride to be greater than God (Isaiah 14:26) is what led him to lie to Eve. So in Revelation we see the coming of the anti-christ and the serpent (dragon). Why is this? To once again try and take over the soverignity of God and His Throne, by forcing worshippers i.e. mark of the beast. God’s soverignity and Glory will once again be revealed in these last days.

    But the subversion of the propagation of the fleshly line shall force the God-begotten to either cease serving two masters or return to their vomit. I tell myself that I’m ready to stand for my faith. When persecution comes and leaves me with a choice of returning to my vomit or proclaiming Jesus Christ, I will stand boldly and proclaim.

    The serpent was after God’s creation and what better way than to deny God’s soverignity and make man worship the creature (serpent) rather than the Creator. The serpent is setting up people to follow him into condemnation. BUT Love overcomes. No greater Love than the Love of God. We can avoid the condemnation of God be receiving His love.

    We look to Genesis, where God’s creation was good, then we look to the Hope we have waiting for us in revelation. This is where the Gospel came from. The Gospel is the hope given to sinners which promises redemption of creation as seen in revelation. In between these two books we have from Genesis to Revelation, God working to bring redemption through Jesus Christ.

    Days are thining, those that read this, seek the Lord Jesus and know His voice. The enemy is attacking the body of Christ from the inside, and WILL lead many astray. Open your hearts, and recieve the truth with joy and remeber that we are called to be slaves of righteousness. A slave owns nothing. Die to self and follow Jesus. He is the only light that will guide you.

    You asked for my conviction here’s my conviction….I see it as wrong in God’s eyes. Why? Because when we do it, we deny God’s creation. Not only of us but in the animal kingdom. That Roamns chapter is true. We have given in to our lusts and desires and changed what God has created and will. We have turned from God, denied Him, His soverignity, His power, Grace. Matthew 19:8 “….because of the hardness of your hearts….” Our hearts have become hard towards what is righteous.

    We cannot show Love if we do not know who Love is. Read the bible. The power of Jesus Christ is available to those who seek it diligently, and obey His words. Read and follow His sermon on the mount. Obey. This is the key to the Kingdom, the greatest secret in the Gospel. On the day of His return, He will say “Well done, good and faithful servant”.

    To God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever! Amen

    • Top Gun says:

      Sorry I made a mistake with the Isaiah verse, it should be verse 12-15 of chapter 14.

      • Angela says:

        Sodom was already going to be destory also EZK states what Sodom was and it wasn’t homosexuality. Also Sodom was a place of criminals

      • Thanks for your backup as always, Angela! 🙂 It is clear that you have taken the time to review the Scriptures presented. May God continue to bless you in the knowledge and wisdom of His Divine Word to the people!
        -Moanti

    • Thank you for your reply. I also want to thank you for not being judgmental, as this is a hard task to accomplish when speaking on this topic. I was not offended by a word you said. I must say that I am, once again, in agreement with what you have shared. I praise God that you are sharing these words here because I believe it will be a big help to many. The only small thing I do not resonate with is your conviction about homosexuality being wrong in the eyes of God, and that’s okay. I am not here to discredit your personal conviction, but rather believe that, for whatever reason, this is your individual conviction, as a same-gender relationship is not part of God’s plan for your life personally. You shared that you struggled with a sin not directly spoken of in the Bible, but made no mention of you yourself having any struggle with same-gender attraction so I am assuming that you are heterosexual (correct me if I’m wrong.) It seems as if your conviction is based on the original design of the first creation in the Garden of Eden (God made a male and a female partner first). Yes indeed the Serpent did cause sin to come into the world and distort the natural design of Gods’ original creation…. But this does not definitively prove that monogamous life-long same-gender relationships are a distortion and condemned or of the Serpents’ plan. God has made a multitude of variation in His design. If we look to God’s restoration of creation when the Serpent is thrown into the Lake of Fire, we see that Jesus reveals that there will be no marriage between humans in Heaven, which we assume also means that there will be no more births. The point in this is that gender is not of importance in the Kingdom of God, as we are all one in the body of Christ.

      I just attended the funeral of my Pastor who recently died of cancer. My Pastor was called to the ministry and lived a life that reflected Christ more than anyone I have had the honor to meet in this life thus far. Just as you spoke of your two friends who have such a close relationship with God that you desire, my Pastor truly exemplified what it means to be a Christian with complete genuineness and humbleness. As an attendee of the funeral, I was able to meet hundreds who were touched by my Pastor’s Christ-like love for all. The Holy Spirit glows in the presence of this church unlike any I have attended. With this said, my Pastor’s conviction was that God accepted homosexuals in the context of a God-centered life-long monogamous marriage (as marriage is a covenant before God, not a matter of man-made government license.) My Pastor was called to minister to the gay and lesbian community and led many to Christ who were cast out or turned off from God by judgmental heterosexual Christians. There is no doubt whatsoever that my Pastor has inherited the Kingdom of God as a good and faithful servant.

      Jesus told us on the Sermon on the Mount that false teachers would come in His name. He told us how to recognize them: “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” -Matthew 7:16-20. If only you knew my Pastor, you would be assured of all the good fruit produced for the glory of God. If good fruit cannot come from a bad tree (person), yet my Pastor was convicted and taught that homosexuality as a whole was not a sin, than what might we gather from this? We know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but we also know that those in Christ are washed and sanctified and justified by the blood of Jesus Christ and all that come to Him are made righteous in God’s sight. “But God has shown me that I should never call a person impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:28) “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15.) So with this said, it seems that Christian (gay or straight) are saved wether they are called to a life of celibacy or called to marry.

      Looking back to God’s original creation, we see that after each new created thing, God called it “good.” The very first thing that God called “not good” was that “it is not good for a man to be alone.” (Genesis 2:18.) It is said that God made “a partner suitable for him (Adam.)” For the homosexual without the Spiritual Gift of celibacy, it is against the original design of creation for a man to be alone. We know that a woman is not a suitable partner for a homosexual man. So could it be said that the man should be with a suitable partner (another man)? Furthermore, Paul states “To the unmarried and widows I say that it is good to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn in lust.” (1 Corinthians 7:8,9.) For those that are heterosexual, marrying an opposite sex partner would satisfy. But what about for the homosexual? Marrying heterosexually would not stop them from burning in lust towards the same gender. (Note that I am not saying that all homosexuals naturally burn in lust, but that if they are not called to celibacy, they would still long to be in a relationship with the same gender.) I have heard many stories of a homosexual marrying a heterosexual partner, only to hurt them by not having the capability to feel love for their spouse. Some end up having empty affairs with the same gender and many of these marriages end in a bitter divorce. If they had married the same gender, then they would not have these struggles nor any unmet needs for suitable affection.

      So as a whole, I see exactly what you are saying. I just think that this one small part may not be outside of God’s plan for those in this situation. I have been with my spouse for nearly 10 years. I have seen both of our walks with Christ strengthen together more than alone. When God is the head and Jesus is the foundation in our union, how can we fail?

      On a side note, I recently learned that one of the major Christian organizations that feed starving children and ministers and helps the poor has been put in a bind concerning gay Christians. For several years, they allowed gay Christians to be employed in helping feed and minister to the poor. They required them to follow the same moral and ethical standards as heterosexuals; to be celibate or married. Sadly, the organization was threatened by their largest donors to pull their funding if they continued to employ these gay Christians. They have recently fired the gay Christians and no longer allow them to serve. Although a different topic but in the same scope, most of the world churches and governments prevent homosexuals from marriage. The result is that it puts most homosexuals in an outside place from Biblical morality. How can heterosexuals expect homosexuals to follow the same moral and ethical guidelines if they don’t allow them to be part of the same moral and ethical guidelines? This organization (due to the big donors threat) has literally said “you’re gay, so you aren’t allowed to feed the poor.” Likewise, the majority says, “you’re gay, so you aren’t allowed to marry.” To expect homosexuals to be held to the same Biblical standards, we must allow for homosexuals to have the same standards as heterosexuals equally. If we cast out homosexuals from the moral basics, the result is seeing many (not all) fall into promiscuity and secularism because we haven’t allowed the rules to apply to them. This has not produced good Spiritual fruit on either side. But when we allow gay Christians to serve and marry, we allow for more righteousness and grace and multiply fruitfulness which brings glory to God. I’ve said this in many comments recently (and will likely add it to the article above), that I have come to believe that Biblical marriage (as a life-long monogamous Christ-centered partnership) is a blueprint for same-sex couples as well. Just as the Message came “first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles,” I am convicted that the blueprint for marriage came first to the heterosexual (majority), then to the homosexual (minority.) It’s not a surprise that same-gender couples aren’t mentioned in Scripture, as we make up such a small portion of the population. Hemaphredites (those born with both male and female sex organs) aren’t mentioned in Scripture either. Who are they allowed to marry? Without going in depth as I have done in the article above, as far as we can see the Bible does not condemn same-gender monogamous committed relationships. If it condemned anything at all related to homosexuality, it was outside of this context. If Leviticus was a blanket command against all homosexual relations, it was under the Old Covenant for the Jews to be set apart from non-Jews before Jesus came to bring in the New Covenant. Everything after doesn’t command against it, but only speaks historically of male same-gender sex outside of a monogamous commitment. (Please read the entirety of the above article if you haven’t already to fill in all the blanks.) Any more thoughts? I thank you again for your words. May God truly have all the Glory!
      -Moanti

      • Top Gun says:

        Moanti,
        I don’t want to debate and draw conclusions from any scripture. Please read this verse.

        Revelation 4:1 “After this I looked, and behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me: which said, Come up hither, and I will shew the things which must be hereafter.2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.3 And he that sat was to look upon like jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne.”

        Notice that there is a rainbow round about the throne. The throne of God!
        The rainbow is used as the sodomite symbol. This is how dangerous and satanic sodomy is. My previous comment about satans tactics, that satans only way of attack is trying to corrupt the word of God. satan wanted to be like the Most High…that’s why he was thrown out of heaven. Satan is trying to usurp the throne of God, and he is using the sodomites to try to do this. In the book of Daniel, the anti-Christ is prophesied to be a sodomite. Read Daniel 11:36-38 Daniel prophesied the characteristics of the anti-Christ.

        I will leave it as that cause I feel as though I’ve well and truly outstayed my welcome. God bless you Moanti.

      • My dear sir,
        I first want to say that you have in no way overstayed your welcome. All are welcome to comment here and express their ideas, especially one in the member of the brethren of Christ. We may have some different interpretations of a few passages in Scripture, but this is no way separates us from communing together in the body of Christ. I agree with your most recent comment whole heartily, although I must confess that your comments referencing the antichrist as gay or the rainbow around the throne of God being Satanic due to the rainbow flag are out of my realm of understanding. As I see it, the rainbow around the throne of God has nothing to do with Satan or being gay just as the rainbow after the flood had nothing to do with Skittles candy. Your translation of Daniel 11 is taken quite out of context. For reference, here is Daniel 11:36-39 KJV – “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.” Each statement about the antichrist is about him not regarding God or gods, but only regarding himself. Amongst this, you find that his not regarding the desire of women to be a random statement about his sexual orientation? This does not say that he does not desire women, but rather does not regard the desire of women or in other more clear translations, he does not regard “the ONE desired/beloved by women.” This is a Hebrew idiom for Jesus, as when written in the time of Daniel, the Messiah had not yet come. Women desired to be the child-bearer of the Messiah, therefore, this speaks to the anti-Christ having no regard for God, Jesus, or any other gods but himself. The “god of forces” or more accurately “fortresses” is a Hebrew symbol for self-preservation. This just means that the antichrist only regards himself and his own safety and power.

        I am not here to argue about verses, but bring new understanding for the glory of God who shines love upon us all. I hope this helps. May God continue to bless you in His knowledge. Have a wonderful Sunday in celebration of the resurrection of our Beloved Savior Jesus Christ! Praise be to God for giving us His Son who fulfilled the Law and washes away all our transgressions!
        -Moanti

  29. Gary says:

    Moanti,

    I referenced your work in Erik Brewer’s Blog – Christ’s Resurrection; Sin’s death blow.

    Gary

  30. Gary says:

    Moanti,

    I’d like to ask you a Biblical question:

    Anti-gay Christians refer to Leviticus 18:22 as proof that homosexuality is a sin. If people challenge them, saying that those laws are not now in effect, just like laws against wearing different fabrics or working on the Sabbath are not practiced today, they will reply that a common mistake made by homosexual proponents when discussing the Old Testament, in particular Leviticus, is the failure to understand the three main divisions of the Law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. Homosexuality is under the moral law category. It is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites. They say that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial.

    My question is, is it specifically stated anywhere in the Bible that there is a distinction or division of these laws? Did Jesus or Paul make any specific distinction?

    I challenged Erik on this and he never replied.

    Gary

    • Hello again Gary,
      The most basic answer to your question is yes and no. There is no perfectly straight forward definitive distinction between such laws in the sense that Jesus or Paul said “here are a list of the civil laws, the ceremonial laws and the moral laws.” Yet at the same time, Jesus and Paul seem to move away from what would be considered ceremonial and civil laws, and encompass an ongoing moral law, in which loving God and others is the most important and fulfills the requirement of the whole moral law (Matthew 22:36-40, Romans 13:8-10, among others…) So the way in which we divide each command into separate categories is a human construct since no “list” was made to divide them all up perfectly. So although the categories exist, what falls into which category is up for debate. Despite this, it is made certain that the ceremonial laws would be abolished because we are under the New Covenant of grace, in which Christ paid the final penalty for sin for all mankind through His blood sacrifice. So we are no longer required to make cultural distinctions between the Jew and Gentile by performing specific acts or perform animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, because we are forgiven by grace and considered one in Christ. But the ceremonial laws themselves (hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation”) are in confusion on the topic of homosexuality. Because the Bible speaks of these acts within the context of shrine prostitution in idol worship and customary gang rape, it could have been a custom of the Israelites to abstain from such acts.

      The biggest argument among Christians is what constitutes the moral laws (mishpatim in Hebrew.) Here is a common modern definition: “Their purpose is to promote the welfare of those who obey. The value of the laws is considered obvious by reason and common sense.” It could be truthfully said that under the Old Covenant, for the Israelites, being in a gay partnership would not have be advantageous because it would halt the procreation of their growing nation. But we know that we are no longer commanded to have children as these early cultures in human existence were (Matthew 19:11,12). The earth is already propagated, so now this becomes a choice rather than a command. It would seem then that the command against homosexual sex (if it even says that) would be in the category of a “custom of the nation” law. I would not consider an attraction to the same gender a cultural custom, but the practice of same-gender partnering in ancient times seemed to have tied into customary acts (idol prostitution, gang rape of foreigners.) So at the time before Jesus, this could have been considered a ceremonial and moral law for the time. Ceremonial because of its ties to pagan custom acts, and moral because of its lack of procreation when procreation was still commanded. Yet we must remember that the Jews before Christ made no distinction between the laws, as all the commands, customary or not, were the same in their eyes under the Old Covenant.

      Some Christians would say that the command against homosexuality is part of the New Covenant moral law because it is mentioned in the New Testament by Paul. But as you are familiar with, the act is only mentioned in the context of shrine prostitution, which makes it remain an act of harm. This in no way relates to modern monogamous gay relationships.

      Perhaps by Erik’s “moral common sense,” he believes in the false information about gays, so he truly thinks that being gay is harmful to ones health. So to him, not being gay would promote welfare. Yet to our common sense, we know that being gay itself is not harmful, especially in a context of a monogamous lifelong partnership. The only harm that seems to come from it are dealing with those apposed to it. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals can fall into promiscuity, get STD’s, commit adultery, lust after one another, act as a prostitute and the like. This is what remains harmful, but when we follow God’s blueprint for marriage (a God-centered monogamous lifelong partnership), we bestow love to God and others and find the most benefit with gay and straight unions alike.

      It is my belief (derived from the study of Scriptures) that the moral laws encompass all acts that deviate from loving God and others. We also can show our love to God through bestowing love to others. If “love is all that the law demands” (Romans 13:10), to harm someone by lying, stealing, killing, committing adultery, etc. is to sin. Moral sin itself can be measured by the harm it inflicts and the lack of love it bestows. It is usually self-driven to build oneself up over another. The Leviticus passages themselves seem to be in the context of the culture, where homosexual sex acts were performed commonly within idol worship and rape situations. These are immoral acts that cause harm and do not bestow love. But there still exists no Biblical command against a monogamous lifelong relationship between a couple of the same gender. In this context, love is bestowed, so how can it be considered harmful and sinful? It does not seem to fall into the category of harmful acts. Love itself is not sinful and comes from God.

      So although separating each of the laws into categories is a human construct, we can Biblically observe that some laws would have to be abolished due to the fulfillment of Christ’s sacrifice under the New Covenant. Yet commands against harming others and a deviation from bestowing love, remain. The biggest argument are the grey areas such as homosexuality that teeter on either side depending on who you ask. So the real question becomes, is the command against homosexual sex an abolished ceremonial law or remaining moral law? I believe that the debate exists due to a confusion of what constitutes moral conviction and self preference. Many heterosexuals are repulsed by the idea of gay sex, so in their mind, they believe that God has told them it is wrong because it “feels” wrong to them. Throw in the confusion of the passages that appear to condemn homosexuality, and they feel justified. But looking at homosexuality overall, if the union is in the context of a God-centered loving monogamous partnership, then it demonstrates love to God and others, which logically cannot be a sin. Thank you again for your questions Gary!
      -Moanti

      • Gary says:

        Moanti,

        Thanks for your reply.

        Not to be patronizing, but as I said before, you really should write a book on your interpretation of the Bible, and not just as it pertains to homosexuality.

        Gary

      • Thank you Gary. Your words serve as an enormous encouragement to me to continue on in these studies. Since you have suggested that I write a book on my interpretation of the Bible (not just as it pertains to homosexuality), what topics would you want to see covered? I’d appreciate your consultation on what has been helpful to you enough to motivate you to suggest this… I am very open to the idea, although this may take quite some time due to the impediment of my career. But if it is to be, God will help make a way. Thanks again for your great compliments and helpful advice!

      • Gary says:

        Give me a few days to consider that.

      • Hi Gary,
        I just thought I’d say that I’m still eager to hear your response when you have the time. Please let me know what you think. Thanks!
        -Moanti

    • Gary says:

      Moanti,

      Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. The more I thought about what to suggest to you in writing book, the more I realized there is so much to write about.

      You seem to be passionate about how the Bible relates to daily life. One thought I had was a novel on the life of a fictional person in the 1st or 2nd century living in Corinth or Rome who is exposed to Paul’s preaching the a town square for the first time and how that effects their life. Do they become a follower and how does that effect their relationships? A first person account might be an interesting perspective.

  31. Top Gun says:

    I almost forgot, well I did forget to write this in my comment above but I shall do it now….you said many in the homosexual community were turned off from God by judgemental heterosexual Christians….if these judgemental people didn’t exemplify Christ-like behaviour toward them then yes I agree with you that they are judgemental by that I mean they denied them because they were sinners. Only and only when a person allows Jesus in ones life can the Holy Spirit work to restore us, sinners we are, to righteousness before God. I’d personally would be afraid of God if I denied someone the Gospel because they weren’t righteous enough. We all need a savior and and no man out of his own will can overcome sin.

    What worries me though is that many in the homosexual community at in rebellion to what the word of God says. But that’s not for me to deal with. That’s for The Lord God alone who has authority above all. Like those homosexuals with the same flesh and blood made by the same Creator, I rebell but am dealt with according to the one who is Good. Gods mercy is poured out to those who listen and fear Him.

  32. scottsunday says:

    Moanti,

    Some of the things I’ve read on your blog, both in the OP and in the comments section, reminded me of a more philosophical approach to this debate I postulated (well, I’m being generous to myself by saying “postulated” – I’m almost certain I’m not the first to come up with this line of thinking!) not too long ago. It’s kind of long-winded, but I’ll try to keep it as short as feasibly possible.

    The argument works like this: the teachings as enshrined in the Ten Commandments, preached by the Jewish prophets, and applied by Jesus, can be summed up in a few simple passages: love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. That is what is stated in Matthew 22:37-40.

    So what does this tell us about God’s desire for us? Simple. God wants us to love Him and love all of humanity by following those simple commandments. However, as God is omnipotent, His power does not rest on our ability to follow them. When we commit sin, it is us, not God, who ultimately fails. God wants us to love Him, and in doing so, love each other and ourselves. (This is why I, as a Protestant, believe that faith is what justifies us, and that good works are what follow from that faith.)

    So, in determining whether a choice is right or wrong, we must consider this: is it inherently blasphemous, or is it inherently destructive to mankind, be that ourselves or someone else?

    And this is where the question of homosexuality comes in. Is there anything inherently blasphemous about the genders of those who partake in an honest, committed relationship? Is there anything inherently destructive, physically or otherwise, about the genders of those who partake in an honest, committed relationship?

    We know there are people who think that homosexual relationships are both blasphemous and destructive, but this is where we ask ourselves, are those claims objectively true? Beyond all the pseudoscholarship on gay relationships and stubborn discrimination I’ve seen from many, I have to say no. There is NOTHING inherently blasphemous, offensive, or harmful about loving, committed, and of course, mutual relationships. Gender doesn’t have the final say on this because gender is a product of creation and not of spirit. When we are with God, biological concepts of gender and social concepts of marriage will be rendered null and void. We live in a time when we need not concern ourselves with populating the planet or furthering the human race. Humans will continue to exist and reproduce for generations to come whether we let gays and lesbians live free of shame or not. (Since Jesus was kind of big on that “making the world a better place” stuff, I’d say we might as well do it!)

    Obviously I’ve wrote more about this than I had intended to, but, in short, committed homosexual relationships cannot be sin per Biblical definition because they are not blasphemous nor are they detrimental to society or to individuals. So, putting all semantics and Greek translations aside, the moral conviction against gays just doesn’t add up.

    Now, a person who is cemented in their view that gayness is a sin will probably not accept this logic. As I’ve never seen or met God, I can’t even be sure if this approach is right or not. However, I think it’s an approach that is in sound agreement with Scripture and Christian theology. (What’s interesting is that the person who helped me come up with this approach is a Unitarian Universalist, although his theological views are distinguishably Christian.)

    If this approach is correct, it will obviously affect a wide range of issues that the Christian church faces, and not just homosexuality or gay marriage. I’ll get off my soapbox right now and hop off to bed.

    Moanti, I would love to hear what you think. 🙂

    God’s grace be with you.

    Scott

    (P.S. I took an Ambien shortly before writing this, so I apologize if the post sounds strange in certain areas.)

    • Hello there Scott,
      I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I highly enjoyed your comment, especially how gender is an object of creation. I have thought this recently in that we should strive to “reflect” the new creation, rather than the old. People put so much emphasis on the old creation that “God created male and female in the beginning” and act as if things were perfect before the fall of mankind. I would dare to say that things were NEAR perfect before the fall, but the fact that Satan lurked around able to deceive in the first creation is not as magnificent as him being locked away from destroying souls in the new eternal creation. We know in the new creation, no one will marry or be given into marriage. We also know that all believers (both human males and females) will be the bride of Christ. Therefore gender is not an issue in the new creation. So then why not reflect the perfect new creation by not putting so much emphasis on gender? Taking as you said, the loving committed monogamous relationship itself, it is not inherently evil.

      Anyway, I must run to work, but thanks again for your comment… May our God continue to bless you with the knowledge to help others with your words.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti
      P.S. I didn’t notice anything strange or “ambien-esque” about your comment. Although I am quite familiar with the drug doing some “strange” things to my friend who took it in its beginning stages and was one of the people who had a whole different life at night that she was totally unaware of until it was witnessed by others. She drove about the town and even “dated” someone else in her ambien sleep walking state and couldn’t recall a thing, yet appeared totally conscious. I think she may be the reason they have such strange warnings on the commercials. I hope that didn’t freak you out. You better put a camera in your bedroom just to be sure! Haha. Just kidding… 😉

  33. anonymous57 says:

    Hello, Moanti,

    I hate to be that guy, but I have a duty to speak the truth. You should delete that blog, and STOP your wrong doing..

    The devil work with “perhaps”, you know? Perhaps, incest commited relationship are okay and even blessed, no word says otherwise in Scirptures.. etc, etc…

    By that, please use the “safe rule”, which is, if you have doubts is it right or wrong, don’t do it., The very meaning of St Paul saying, everything not acted on Faith is sin..

    I sincerely empathize for you, it is only human to preach for your cause, but you are distorting Scirptures to make your lifestyle fit, and aggressively forward some very mean claims, like evil people preventing some to marry, enuchs being homosexuals, etc.. Fallacy.

    Actually, you are in the very prophetized words of St Paul the eprson whio not only pratice these sins, but approve of those who do.. I am sorry to say..

    To coutner once for ALL your claims and show you what is true and what is lies, I trust romans is the key. It is obvious that is not talking about women abising little girls, or men little boys, but just like today, consensual adult homosexul sex.. The context makes you think of idol worship? Well, Paul link idolatry and homosexuality, because the Great One God is SPIRIT, and homsoexuality is all about the body, same-sex body taking the palce of God.. Or perhaps masculinity, feminity..

    I personally call homosexuality “the curse of brotherhood”.. Because brothers and sisters stop toe xist, see your “girlfriend” is your “wife” to your eyes.. Wrong, she is a woman, and a sister. she is a girl friend, not a girlfriend.

    Pratcical steps for you, admit lesbian sex is a sin that you must abandon, STOP to pretend it is not.. you love it, you enjoying pleasuring yourself and your pertner with elsbian sex.. That is your sin.. god forgives, if you admit you are sinning, even if you fall everyday, pray and cry afterwards.. Do’nt cheat your guilt and strenghten your heart, you are already deep in that as I can see 😦

    Please, consider and delete that blog because you are serving the devil against the Word, dragging fellow homosexuals in temptations to decide and approve your claims.. Can’t you see??

    Slavery of sin.. I pity and love you deeply, I wish you can ease your mind and give up on your reasoning to justify yoruself, you are living hell by that.. Let God love you and help you OUT, we can’t jsutify oruselves.. Christ can, but that eman to abandon what is wrong to God eyes, in your “case”, your commitment to lesbian sex and girlfriend, you have to see her as your beloved friend or you wiill commit a sin..

    Just my humble opinion, bless you and to sum up.. STOP justifying your sins.. confess and repent as you fall, that is enough.. With that line of conduct, you may really stop to sin induilging in lesbian sex, what has your girfriend that you could miss, ANYWAY.. In body, mind , soul, etc..As a conjugal partner, I mean, do not take this as an offense against her as your beloved friend, cause she can ever be and surely is.

    Take care,

    • Dear anonymous,
      It appears that you have an aversion to the word “perhaps.” Please do pardon me for the confusion in my word usage. I use the word “perhaps” to express the possibility (not uncertainty) that traditionalist are in fact in error in their damaging views of gays and lesbians. I use the word “perhaps” because this speaks much more gently than does emphatic words such as “you are all wrong and misled and 100% led by your own disgust and causing people to kill themselves and worst of all, run from God.” People in opposition tend to “consider” (a word you used in reference to deleting my Bible studies) things more if you don’t cram it down their throat. People do not like to hear that they are wrong. But one may seek to research further if they are told that they might be wrong. So out of love to my fellow brother and sister, I use the word “perhaps” and pray that they can further be led by God to study His Word to consider this fact. So, as the author presenting this material, it must be presented in such a way that people, both gay and also straight, will “perhaps consider the possibility.” My gentle words are to help those who struggle, not to bring about any deception or futile counterproductive exchange. This is not showing a lack of faith, but a gentle vocabulary to exhort open dialog and exploration. Those who have met me can recognize the Holy Spirit within me, therefore do not jump to condemn me as using the same works as the Devil.

      Now it must be said that some theories present on here are said in the manner of “some believe.” When this is used, this does not mean that I have claimed it, but that it is in the realm of possibility according to other Bible scholars. Eunuchs and “forbidding those who marry” is an example of “some believe.” Furthermore, you misquoted me about Romans, somehow making it seem as if I had said it was child molestation? No. I never said Romans had anything to do with this (as this is a reference to the word “malakos”… But as far as idol worship, it appears that you have simplified it. This is speaking of those who exchanged God for idols… But in more graphic terms is what they did in order to accomplish this worship. “Women exchanged their natural function for that which is unnatural.” The idol worshipers of this time would have sex for worship… The sacrifice (supported by Leviticus 18:21) was semen. For there to be a “sacrifice,” there must be surrender of something without receiving anything in return. Therefore, this sacrifice of semen must not result in procreation. Because females cannot be the giver of semen, they can only be the vessel to receive such sacrifice. In order to complete this as an intercessor to their idols, they received the male seed in a non-procreative way, which was to accept this seed sacrifice anally as the female shrine prostitute. LIKEWISE, the men did the same for purpose of giving their seed to the idol and receiving it as the male shrine prostitute. Shrine prostitution is more contextually Biblically supported than is homosexuality, especially lesbianism. With this said, can we condemn a lesbian on the basis of women “exchanging natural for unnatural?” Everything else that appears against this is wholly male, as even the words itself suggest. So, what makes you so sure?

      You call homosexuality “the curse of the brotherhood” because people stop to exist? Okay… So you view it as a curse to not procreate. Yes? Who told you that procreation was commanded unto you as a believer? Wasn’t this command to Adam and then to Noah under the Old Covenant? “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” The earth is filled, yes? There are still a majority of heterosexuals in this world who joyfully continue our existence in their free will as humans on this earth, yes? So to the ones who cannot or do not procreate, can’t we still be fruitful by multiplying the body of believers in Christ? Or are we just cursed? Remember that in the New Creation no one will be married to each other. Only all believers will be married to Yeshua exclusively. This includes those born from the earth as male and female. So gender is not a focus of the new creation. We know that the new creation is perfection in that Satan and sin and death will be bound forever in the lake of fire. The first creation was not perfect because Satan was free to deceive and bring about sin and death. Why then do you put such an emphasis on reflecting the first creation? Why not strive to reflect the new perfect eternal creation where gender is not important? We are no longer male and female, but one in Jesus Christ!

      But aside from all of these semantics, the heart of this message has brought forth more believers in Christ and has saved people from committing suicide. One must truly question where the good Spiritual fruit is produced. Is it wrong of me to help people become believers or help them not kill themselves? Likewise, is it wrong for me to open the eyes of condemners to act in more loving way towards their fellow brothers and sisters in order to further God’s work?

      I am sorry that you took offense to these things, and have no doubt that you believe whole-heartily that who I am is worthy of eternal burning torment unless I renounce my marital union and cut off my ability to love. Thankfully, though, my Savior is Yeshua Ha-Mashiach. The power of His blood is strong enough to combat any sin, as we are all unworthy creatures and only given eternal life by His grace. The grace of His sacrifice is worthy of sanctification for all that come to Him. Thank Yahweh for giving His Son for us so that we may live with Him in the New Creation! I am truly sorry that you have taken offense by any of my suggestions of looking at Scripture in a different way from the modern majority view. I am sad to hear that you have compared my wife with only a perverse lust for “lesbian sex” and distortion of the Scriptures to “justify” my God-centered union. I can forgive your words, brother, because I see you know little of these things. That’s okay. If you yourself are convicted not to engage in a homosexual relationship, then that is perfectly fine. You don’t have to be in one. This doesn’t concern you dear fellow. I know your words are said out of concern, which comes from love. But the result can be very damaging to those who are not yet believers in Christ. To this fact, I ask you to pray for discernment and reconsider. But none the less, I genuinely thank you for your concern. I am 100% convinced in my faith and only wish to bring glory to God through bringing the message of the atoning works of our Savior.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

  34. Xavier says:

    Hello Moanti,

    Anonymous57 again, I thank you to have published my comment, please could you as well edit the few typos here and there if you can, for the presentation? 🙂

    I do not want to enter in any debate with you, it does not interest me and I have no benefit, as we have a common goal to call people to God’s redeeming love, that is the point.

    I am again sorry to be blunt, but don’t you think more qualified experts in Theology, exegesis, ancient languages have been and certainly are hard at work about these very issues of an authentic translation and interpretation? I do understand it means the world to you, Scriptures not condemning consensual sex between same gendered persons but it a false hope and a self-deception you are building here, a wall of text to hide behind,. 😦

    I trust we are still under the Law of God and it is to last forever, The Ten commandments that is. The seventh one is condemning adultery.. Adultery is admittedly any sex with any other person than your spouse, Marriage is clearly defined for the husband and wife, as it has been confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ. for them to “join together as one flesh” as the only legitimate way God has set before, for any and all sexual activity, that one and only condition to enjoy the gift of sex and finding his blessing, while everyhting else is excluded..

    To that, by that, it is safe to assume, there is no way around the factual truth that homosexuality is adultery anyhow, and therefore a sin against God..

    I sincerely feel for your conditon and situation, I know you do no decide to have same-sex attractions someday or just for the experience out of curiosity, and I will never blame you nor do I believe you are set to hell, all sins are forgvable aside this one, to accuse God of being unfair by His Loving, protecting Laws..

    I just want to say, that you should consider what I say seriiusly, and say more, and more, and more and more, again GOD, our One True God is a loving and forgiving God, even if you fail to resist temptations and engage in homosexuality every single day with your partner that you hopefully do love genuinely, simply confess your shame and guilt, and cry for your weakness to the strong passion of carnal desires, just do this every day even living as a homosexual, but please I beg of you do not reject the shame and guilt from sinning, they are here purposely to KNOW right from wrong, so that God can wash you and bless you as you offer him your sins to the Cross..

    We are all sinners and that is all.. Homosexuals are not worst, this is very true and I will stand for them too, apart from the unrepenting and promiscuous ones multiplying partners and the wrong of involving children in “gay marriages” as a civil law. Thank you again for your openness, dear sister in Christ.

    I can use my real name, I am the same Xavier that posted that last comment on Erik page, on his article “is homosexuality dangerous for your health.” I am very sensitive about homosexuality as you could read my personal experience on his page, I am actually a false homosexual you could say, I feel like one but do not experience any same-sex attraction, on the contrary, because of a sexual assault leaving its marks on me..

    Take care, and again, our God is forgiving even as we sin that is the only truth worth saying, no use to be wordy and suffer in the search of loopholes in His Word.. Just please do not harden your heart in self-rigtheousness my dear, this is so much worse than gay / lesbian sex..

    God save us,
    Xavier.

    • Hello there Xavier,
      I want to thank you for having the courage to share your story (on Erik’s comment page.) I am so sorry that you have had to go through this struggle. 😦 *hugs* My heart really goes out to you! I can also see where you are coming from in clearer terms considering what you have had to go through… Thank you so much for revealing your identity to me Xavier! This also is an interesting turn of events because my spouse and I saw your comment on Erik’s page when you posted it and we have been praying for you in the past 2 weeks! My spouse specifically prayed that you would find a way to contact me because she felt like I may be able to help you in some way… I told her if it was in God’s Will, you would come to me. And alas, here you are! So praise God for answered prayer by the perfect Will of Yahweh! But really and truly, I feel that we can be a benefit to each other as members in the body of Christ. As I feel that you can help strengthen me as well… We shouldn’t come to each other as opponents, but as fellow believers in our Savior.

      Your words were very sincere and I have to agree with you on your point. It is better to ask God for forgiveness every day… This is not the first time I have encountered this, as I have lived this way for most of my life. The shame involved with my sexual orientation has sent me to the brink of suicide many times in the past. Even though I cried out to God every day for forgiveness and to take these feelings away, they remain. I was struck with fear of being thrown into hell and lived in a constant state of guilt and unworthiness. At this time, I wasn’t aware that there were any alternate ways of interpreting Scripture. I felt very unloved by God and didn’t understand why He would make me this way and not just let me have feelings for the opposite gender like the majority. You see, this is much much more than simply “loving lesbian sex.” I’ve had these feelings long before I even knew what sex was. Sex is not important in comparison to these feelings of love which are not lustful (for me) and more than a friendship or sisterly feeling. It’s exactly comparable to heterosexual romantic love, so there’s no sense in merely sexualizing it. It is sad incidences like from which you have gone through that give it the dark sexual perverse feeling and connotation. Sexual assault is wrong no matter what gender is involved. Once again, I’m sorry that you had to experience this, especially in these very negative circumstances. So I can fully understand your fear of these things and don’t blame you for them. I hope and pray you have been experiencing at least the beginnings of healing, as Yahweh loves you completely and wants to help restore you from your pain…

      As for my personal story, it is not a matter of debate. I share this with you as my experience. Before I started to research the Scriptures, I felt cut off from God. In my shame of my only capacity to love romantically, I didn’t feel connected to Him even thought I constantly tried to reach out to Him. It hurt our relationship to feel so unworthy of His Grace, and this was solely due from the Christians who had told me it was wrong and I was worthy of hell for it. My own mother told me it was comparable to child molestation and my love wasn’t real, but just a counterfeit of Satan. I have never related to the “gay community.” Sadly most that I had met up until that point were either self-proclaimed atheists but more often than not were raised Christian, but ran from God because of all the hatred placed on them by members of the church. This was a heartbreak to me and I just don’t personally relate with non-Christians. I tried reaching out to my heterosexual Christian brothers and sisters but most rejected me, all the while claiming it was out of love. This was very confusing for me and also disheartening, as I didn’t relate to the gay community and the heterosexual Christian community by in large rejected me. I felt more alone than ever and really didn’t think there was anyone else out there like me. Then one day I was seriously contemplating suicide and felt I would never be worthy of God’s love as a lesbian and I mine as well end my life as not to pile up more sins against me. I thought to myself, “this is it.” In my perceived last attempt to reach out to God, I got out my Bible and I prayed for Him to show me something if I could be helped at all… I asked Him if I could ever be worthy of His Grace despite my ongoing existence as a lesbian. With my eyes closed, I opened up God’s Word to Romans and found this:
      “Let love be your only debt! If you love others, you have done all that the Law demands. In the Law there are many commands, such as, “Be faithful in marriage. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not want what belongs to others.” But all of these are summed up in the command that says, “Love others as much as you love yourself.” No one who loves others will harm them. So love is all that the Law demands.” (Romans 13:8-10) I flipped the pages to Acts and came across this verse: “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15). I thought to myself, well this is talking about food and doesn’t relate to me, but then I read on and saw how after Peter’s vision, he was instructed to meet with Cornelius, a Gentile, as well has his gentile group. The verse goes on: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)

      It gave me hope and those words kept me alive. I then felt the presence of Yahweh which had so long been blocked by my own self-hatred. I felt loved and forgiven, but thought, ‘how could this be? I’m still a lesbian!’ I prayed He would show me the truth of His Word and this is when I began my deep study into these Scriptures. I am not one to take someone else’s word without backup. My “backup” was the Scriptures themselves in Hebrew and Greek and researching Biblical context. I tell you Xavier, this is not a twisting or loophole. It is plainly written in Scripture. I am not here to convince you. I am here to tell you that I am convinced with full faith…

      Furthermore, I am convicted that the relationship that I have with my spouse is entirely blessed by God. Our relationship with Him has strengthened 100 fold together as we work to serve God in our relationship. If a relationship is God-centered with its foundation in Christ, how can it be evil? I still continue to ask God for forgiveness for all of my sins and recognize fully that I am a sinner, but no longer convicted that my relationship or capacity to love is part of that in need of forgiveness. None the less, I know that the blood of Yeshua is cleansing of all sin, and all are unworthy. But thankfully, His Grace is sufficient, even for me! My heart was not hardened into self-righteousness, but softened by His amazing Grace that He truly does love me too!!!

      Another verse that deeply impacted me out of suicide was 1 John 4:11-21: “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because he has given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in Him and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as He is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.” This was an especially important verse for me because I was convicted that I was in so much fear that it was Spiritually blocking me from feeling the love of God. I realized it wasn’t God who had abandoned me, but my perception of judgment from others who had barred me from feeling God. Although it’s always been in my personality to show kind empathic love towards others, I was not loving myself as a precious creation of God. I needed first to realize that I was worthy despite my unworthiness, ONLY because Yeshua has made us worthy through His righteousness! Then His perfect love cast out my fear! Praises be to Yahweh in all things, my beloved Holy God who loves us enough to forgive us through His own Son’s sacrifice! He is so amazing and wonderful and full of love to ALL who seek His Face!

      So now I go on to share this realization with others for the fact of bringing those closer to God who feel cast out. There is no “cause” to be fought for, but rather lives to be saved. I feel called by God to help people in this situation and believe that each can benefit according to the Will of God for their own life. It is true that some are called to celibacy, and others to a life with a heterosexual partner even when they don’t love their spouse more than a friend. (I feel in these rare “successes” where the marriage lasts, it may be cause for a child to be born.) But there are those who have liberty to be in a God-centered monogamous life-long union in order to give glory to God, as the Bible offers a blueprint for marriage in the context of the majority. Let me give what I feel is a comparable example. Just as the Bible speaks to the majority, it originally used many masculine terms. Take this important verse as an example: “He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit…” (John 15:5). So taken literally, Jesus is only accepting of males. Was this the case? I certainly hope not! 😉 The Bible was written in masculine-specific language because it was the men of the time who were the main ones allowed to read and teach, so they were “the (intellectual) majority.” This demonstrates how Jesus worked in line to the customs of the time, as I’m sure if Jesus had instead come first to our time, he would use gender neutral terms like we do so all would know they could come to Him. I feel that the same is true with heterosexual marriage mentioned in Scripture. He speaks to the majority, which remain to be heterosexual to this day. The Bible doesn’t command about marriage to hermaphrodites (those born with BOTH male and female working sex organs.) Who would they be allowed to marry since the Bible doesn’t say? Should they be cursed to be alone forever even if given the capacity to love? Or now that we have operations to remove one of the sex organs, the modern hermaphrodite can now marry because they can appear in a heterosexual union (even though they were born biologically as both sexes)? In the beginning, God made them male and female. But now we are told “you are no longer male and female, but one in Jesus Christ!” Yeshua quotes that no man should separate what God has joined together. The circumstances that brought my spouse and I together were nothing short of divine, as He works all things together for good for those who love Him. It really should be more simple than we make it out to be, as the Word of God is for all people!

      As far as only relying on experts in theology and ancient languages, I have prayed for Biblical wisdom and am led by the Spirit. I have extraordinary reverence for God’s Word and am not afraid to delve into its ancient mysteries. My prayers have been fulfilled in regards to many Biblical topics, not just that of “homosexuality.” The Divine nature of Scripture is undeniable far more when you research it in the ancient languages. As an example, the Hebrew and Aramaic ancient alphabet have deep meaning behind every letter. It is not just a phonetical indicator of sound like English. Meaning can be found by combining the meanings of letters into a word. We get Jesus’ saying from the Greek, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” which is the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet. However, when we read this in ancient Hebrew, the implications are astoundingly more deep. The Greek equivalent of Alpha is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the Aleph. It’s ancient pictorial rendering is that of an Ox head and represents “God, first, power and leader.” The Greek equivalent of Omega is the Hebrew letter Tav (or Taw) which pictorial rendering is two crossed sticks (just like the cross) and represents “a covenant, monument, signal and sign.” Put together, we have “I am the Aleph and the Tav.” The Ox head can be represented as the animal sacrificial system under the Old Covenant by God as the first leader. The crossed sticks can be seen as a symbol of Yeshua’s final sacrifice on the cross which is the sign that signals the New Covenant! This shows much deeper meaning than what we see in Greek in any English rendering. This realization was not read from other research, but revealed to me personally in prayer in my studies of the Scriptures. He has also revealed many other astonishing things to me which I can only give credit to the Holy Spirit showing it to me. If you’re interested, more of my studies into the miraculous meanings in Hebrew and Aramaic language in the Scriptures can be found at https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/aramaic-and-hebrew-letters-reveal-hidden-meaning-in-the-bible-including-the-words-for-god-jesus-peace-sin-homosexuality-etc/ It all prophesies to Yeshua as our Messiah and redemption, so this is not a false testimony! At the end of the page, I do confront the words associated with homosexuality using the Hebrew and Aramaic combined letter meaning. But you can fully skip this part if you want to, as I feel the first main section is of most benefit to all people, as it proves the Bible’s Divine nature. Please read it and tell me if your conscience is violated. I would be shocked if it were…

      I don’t think I’ll be punished for taking an interest in craving to know the meaning behind the original Text. God’s law is loving and protecting… Therefore I don’t fight this at all or accuse God of being unfair. My fight is not with God, but reaching out to those who misuse His Law to wrongfully condemn others. Remember that the majority is not always correct, as even the Jews whole-heartily believed that Gentile foreigners were not allowed to be followers of God. But God revealed to Isaiah that this was not the case, yet the law remained until Peter shared his vision that he was not to call anyone unclean or unholy, because “what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.”

      So with this exchange between us, I don’t seek to convince you of the alternate translation, but to show you that an alternate translation does truly exist within the Scriptures themselves. This is not a new liberal “gay activist” theology, but just from deeply studying the original language in light of context. I did read your newest comment on Erik’s site and was disheartened by your perception that I “ripped you apart.” I truly don’t have any intention of ever ripping you apart or condemning you for your own interpretation. It’s just that the fact remains that there is more than one way to look at it and neither of us should condemn each other for what convictions we have for our own life according to His Will and purpose. This is most certainly Biblically supported in the entire chapter of Romans 14, which shows how some believers have different convictions from others, but God accepts them both when they do it for the Glory of God with thanks. Where we fall into error is to put a stumbling block or hinderance in the way of each other. I would never consider myself a “gay activist,” but a Christian activist, as I believe that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall not die, but have eternal life!” I don’t believe that Yahweh excludes those who have a personal relationship with Him and are under the Grace of Yeshua. So this is my “agenda” if you want to call it that, to bring those cast out to the redemptive power of the Cross. God knows my intentions are pure and He is loving and just. Again I thank you for your concern and will continue to pray for you as well.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti
      P.S. I do apologize for this being so long…

    • Angela says:

      One problem we aren’t under the ten commandants they are giving to Israel not to Christans for we are Gentiles not Jewish. It’s clear the moasic law is not for the Christans. We are under the new law of grace not the mosaic law which is giving to the Jews not to
      Gentiles

  35. Xavier says:

    Bonjour, Moanti (I am French).

    I am very touched in my heart, and have read with great interest your message to me, for me.. I am convinced you are a sister in Christ for me, now.

    I thank you deeply for your care about me, my situation.. But if I share it in details I will do in private messages with you, as it is my most intimate feelings and sufferings.

    My last comment on Erik’s page.was not because of you, at all, be assured and rest on this, as we did not have any argument. 🙂

    I am active in a few public forums, and that is where I have lately been called out as “a disgusting homophobic asshole” with no other form of trial by two members and no support from the community, for stating erotic homosexual actions are the sin in the Scripturesl by God’s design. I have insisted over and over of the available Redemption at the simple conditions of aknowledging oneself a sinner, calling a sin as being a sin, salvation by striving to avoid it with a sincere heart as we fall, and God knows we fall every single day.. But I should have known better, that was a public forum, not a Christian forum..

    I am happy you do not argue that Marriage is for man and woman, and sex is designed for them to bond as husband and wife, and hopefully prcoreate with God blessing them with offsprings. This is how I am convinced you are really a follower of Christ, not a wolf in sheep clothing. You are very true in your faith,and to say it OUT LOUD, romantic love or spiritual love, or “platonic” love is the kindness and respect called “agape” and the love God has, and want for us to live.. Regardless of orientation. You talk about your partner with freindly and sisterly feeling , that is another sign you are a true Christian. Erotic manifestations are meant for conjugal love, between husband and wife and if you sometimes express lesiban love, I trust if God is not pelased, can forgive you as you sin that was the point of my message.

    Well.. I think I just met my first gay friend with you, lol.. 🙂

    Take care, I will read your blog with a “safer” mind, as you have used two words that are totally in context.. That homosexual move on me, of the sexual assault have threatened my physical,and human integreity.. I fel violated in my conncience, I felt used and moved bluntly at the spot of a girl, I did not expect it, in the slightest.. Shocked by surprise followed with horror, then I ran for my life.. Blaming myself for my cowardice and contemplating vengeance too often.. Asking me why, am I gay for this to happen to me.. My most revealing reaction to my actual trauma, during a counselling with my psychologist, was to lose it all, and HIT the desk with my closed fists at full force, yelling at full force.. “I AM NOT A WOMAN!!!!!!!”

    …. That is my pain, and my heart is still bleeding.. I can’t express it too much, as I am annoying my few friends anf amily, I should “get over it”.. But they don’t know and have no idea, my struggles not to rely on medicine drugs to kill the invasive thoughts and obsessions.. I am now closing my comment, and may well PM you with my email adress or Skype perhaps to keep in touch and actually become friends?. I am glad to make your aquaintance, and yes, I believe God is at work in our encounter, perhaps to help me ease away my violence and homophobia.. I am indeed a dead-set enemy to liberal gay activists..

    So, I thank you and am at rest about your blog not spreading false doctriens, not leading suffering people to act on their temptations with your blessing, I trust it is not the case now and your testimony in favor of our LORD.

    God bless you, and please save us..
    Xavier.

    • Bonjour Xavier!
      I wanted to send you a quick note, as I need to go to sleep and work tomorrow. But did not want to leave you waiting after such a reply. I will write more to you later as time permits, but wanted to tell you that I am here for you as your friend and member in the body of Christ and absolutely believe that your struggle should not be rushed or ignored. You have gone through much anguish over this and should NOT have to be made to “just get over it.” It effected you at the core of your identity and this makes sense. I will save more on this topic for a more private forum. But just wanted you to know that you are free to process this with me and I am here for full support! I can sense that God does not want you to feel personal shame by this, as you are not condemned by Him and are under the full Grace of Christ. But as far as the feelings it has caused you, it is completely normal to feel the way that you do and you need to talk about it to heal from it. As I prayed for you tonight, The Spirit led me to a verse to share with you to give you encouragement. I hope this gives you some peace and you can feel Yahweh speak directly to you through this verse:
      “Your righteousness, God, reaches to the heavens,
      you who have done great things.
      Who is like you, God?
      Though you have made me see troubles,
      many and bitter,
      you will restore my life again;
      from the depths of the earth
      you will again bring me up.
      You will increase my honor
      and comfort me once more.
      I will praise you with the harp
      for your faithfulness, my God;
      I will sing praise to you with the lyre,
      Holy One of Israel.
      My lips will shout for joy
      when I sing praise to you—
      I whom you have delivered.
      My tongue will tell of your righteous acts
      all day long,
      for those who wanted to harm me
      Have been put to shame and confusion.”
      -Psalms 71:19-24

      And here it is in French:
      “19Car ta justice, ô Dieu! est haut élevée, parce que tu as fait de grandes choses. Ô Dieu qui est semblable à toi?
      20Qui m’ayant fait voir plusieurs détresses et plusieurs maux, m’as de nouveau rendu la vie, et m’as fait remonter hors des abîmes de la terre?
      21Tu accroîtras ma grandeur, et tu me consoleras encore.
      22Aussi, mon Dieu! je te célébrerai pour l’amour de ta vérité avec l’instrument de la musette; ô Saint d’Israël, je te psalmodierai avec la harpe.
      23Mes lèvres et mon âme, que tu auras rachetée, chanteront de joie, quand je te psalmodierai.
      24Ma langue aussi discourra chaque jour de ta justice, parce que ceux qui cherchent mon mal seront honteux et rougiront.”
      -Psalms 71:19-24
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti
      P.S. Although you may have missed a few things upon waking up, I hope that this does not change your perception of me as a true believer, as I feel God has led us together for a reason to strengthen each other… I leave this up to you and no matter what, am here.

  36. Xavier says:

    Ooops, It is Xavier again, sorry I wrote up as I woke up, so I missed quite a lot of things.. Most of all, thank you for sharing your personal experience and life story with me, and thank your girl friend for her care as well, please. God bless you!! 🙂

  37. Xavier says:

    Hi, Moanti.

    Thank you for your kind offer to discuss my issue together, I may send you a private message to start someday soon, perhaps or someday later, but I do keep it, keep you in my heart and mind.

    I have read again your comment and I think you are not ill intended and a true follower of Christ, though I also believe you are somehow “playing with fire” in calling, perhaps considering your girl friend as your “wife” and “spouse” .. We can’t change the Word of God, and the Will of God, we do not have that authority. Jesus is warning severely about taking something out of the Law, or adding to it. Marriage is the foundation of our Humankind, the covenent between husband and wife is a symbol of the unity of Christ with His Church, according to Scriptures. That is not open to changes, that is not open to members of the same genders and it certainly put in a crude light the horror of homosexual actions and relationships, what if Christ was selfish and kept Him to Himself? What if the church is not welcoming Her Savior..?

    I am still not totally at ease with your blog because as far as I can judge, you do muddy the waters proposing alternative interpretations favorable to homosexual sex and relationships to form, which is going against the Will of God.. Granted, there is a serious semantic issue at work here, the word “homosexuality” designing both the orientation that is not sinful but a different kind of temptations coming to a person, and the actual practice of homosexuality which is clearly codnemend as sinful, it is after all just a form of fornciation or adultery and thus indiscuiminately treated as sinful, too… Christ tells us, to throw away whatever and whoever is a risk, a hindrance to your relationship with God.. I truely hope your girl friend is also deeply Christian in her ways and there is nothing but sisterly love in your life, that temptations for homosexual activities is not heavy on you both, by your chocie of living together, dear Moanti.

    Please allow me to share some of my sources for our Chrsitian edification. Here are two comprehensive links, not chains to tie but truth to free.. Amen.

    This first one is harsh on the matter by the end of the article, but clears the mud I find with displease in your blog, and would be of great help for your readers. I really think so :

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality

    This second one is very loving word in favor of our God :

    http://www.bridgetothebible.com/What%20does%20Bible%20say/24%20Sexual%20Morality.htm

    To conclude my comment, God is not homophobe, and you do well, we all must do and say it, orientation is not a sin, as there is no unvolontary sin. But if one happen to engage in homosexuality in actions or in thoughts (fantasies) on a regular basis, that is a real threat and an evidence they are not serving God..

    God has never approved of indiscriminate sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship in any age of human history. Key word is indiscriminate. Homosexuality is not special to earn a licence to sin and Scriptures arranged for it to fit as rigtehous, as God alrerady judged that matter as sinful. Simply and clearly, pre-marital and extra-conjjugal sex are unacceptable to God, and for a Christian. We have to deny ourselves to follow Christ, the homosexual lifestyle is going the other way, a narcisstic way taking attributes of self for one’s love.. Taking a member of the same gender for ourself.. How will God judge such a person if they do not repent and acknowledge their wrong doing. I fear and pray for them.. Sin has a lot to do with self deception and auto suggestion.. The more you think you are set some way, the more you believe it and become it.. The less our God of wonders can transform the person as their faith is directed (projected) in one’s own beliefs, not rooted in the Word of God, dwelling from within a good heart..

    I am sometime heavily burdened by invasive suggestions of myself being of homosexual orientation, and search in the dirtiest waters of the internet to confront myself with my tendencies.. I have only known one woman, and I loved her, perhaps still now love her.. The failure of our relationship hit my self-esteem, and that was an open door to such questioning.. But the Truth free us, God made us upright. There is no homosexuality within ourself unless we nurture it, I am sure of that by my living experience.

    Take good care, forgive me if some of my words are hurting, I only aim for the truth, the objective truth leading to LIFE, away from the dark waters of our desires and wishful thinking.. Amen

    Bless you and please, God save us all.
    Xavier.

    • Xavier,
      First I must say that I feel the Spirit of God working so strongly in our correspondence. I do not feel we are meant to part ways, as I know I am called to be here as a support to you to help you have a safe place to process your abuse situation. It is of great benefit that I am homosexual because this can help you “work on” your homophobia, as I know this fear has been a stumbling block to you. We also share the same Savior, so we come to each other as a fellow member in the body of Christ. I would NEVER call you mean names and feel sad that the people in that public forum could be so insensitive! You have been through so much, Xavier! It makes perfect sense that you feel the way that you do! My heart breaks thinking about what you have had to go through. This is an important thing for you to process your trauma so you can heal, and my prayers are with you. Perhaps we can talk more privately about this soon as time permits.

      Secondly, it must be known that your words have actually really deeply affected me. They have humbled me. I must thank God more for His forgiveness in everything as I stumble, as He has paid the ultimate price for me! In prayer of you and your words to me, I saw a vision of an Olive tree and I was reminded of a verse (Romans 11) and shown how it pertains to my situation. I think you will find it most interesting… I will explain this soon… But first, I must say that I have added a new section to this main web page which is titled “Final Thoughts, Warnings and Prayer” and marked it as a “must read.” Let it be known that it was two people that motivated me to add this after intensive prayer and consideration of both of your words. It was you and another heterosexual Christian man who I have been having much contact and it has only brought more knowledge to me bestowed from The Lord. You can scroll up, but I thought I would just post it here for you to read over… But first…. I don’t have much time. I only got to read the first link you sent (after already writing my new section.) I really don’t feel that entering into a debate with you is productive… As I feel there is much more we can offer each other. But what I will do is say to you that the statistics offered on that site are similar to Erik’s website, which are at least 30 years old and taken from the sex addicts in bath houses (sex clubs) during that time. So this is NOT at all a representative sample of modern homosexuals. Also, aside from the Biblical focus, sexual orientation is often misunderstood. To have sex with the same gender does not make one homosexual just as to have sex with the opposite gender does not make one heterosexual. If it were that easy, I would have been straight a long time ago! The love and affection aspect is much deeper and more important than the sex. Sex is just the physical expression of bonding love at the most vulnerable level, which too is special and important (don’t get me wrong.) But it is certainly not the main focus of the union. They really should change the term “sexual orientation” into “affection orientation,” as it is the love and affection part that is most important. It is also the aspect which is most uncontrollable, as we can’t help who we fall in love with…

      I also encourage you to read the section above entitled “we are no longer under the Old Covenant.” There seems to be a confusion with the Old and New Covenant here. Hopefully this will explain this. After you have read this, then the verse you quoted from should make more sense in its context. Here is the verse: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17,18) Now one must Biblically understand that Jesus did more than just die on the cross, He brought about the New Covenant of Grace. We are told time and time again that “we are no longer under The Law but under grace.” So Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Fulfillment literally means “to bring to completion.” He also states that nothing will disappear in the Law until all has been accomplished. Well guess what? Jesus already fulfilled and accomplished this by His death and resurrection! He makes this clear in His last words on the cross according to John 19:30 as He said “It is accomplished” which has great meaning in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. It means “it is fulfilled, made perfect and paid for.” So this is NOT to say it is now a “free for all” and we can do whatever we want, but the truth remains in Scripture in 1 Corinthians 10:23 – “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up.” Furthermore, Romans 14:14 – “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.” I could go on and on to show with absolute Biblical support that we are no longer under The Law and that personal convictions do matter. But the main point is that we are under the Grace of the New Covenant (and let no one cheapen the blood sacrifice of Christ by putting all their faith only in the works of The Law, as this is not our salvation!) There were laws under the Old Covenant that were put into to place in order to set the Jews apart from the pagan lands so that they may be recognized as believers. Laws like not mixing 2 fabrics of clothing, eating shrimp, not trimming the sides of your beard, etc. The first two mentioned are listed as abominations in Scripture. We know now that there are many commands in The Law that have been done away with after Christ’s death and resurrection. We also need to acknowledge that believers do have different (and contrary) convictions, yet are still considered believers to God Himself (please read all of Romans 14 for this proof.) Every work of good must be viewed through showing love to God and others and fleeing from harming God and others. So first and foremost, we must rely on the guiding of the Holy Spirit to find our role in the body of Christ and bring glory to God in our actions as a sign of love to Him and others! So without further waiting, I will share with you what I have added to my website. Please notice that I do acknowledge that God designed marriage for a male and female and explore this further with my vision of the Olive tree:

      ———————————————————-
      This body of Biblical research provides strong evidence that the original texts of the Bible do not condemn all of homosexuality, but specifically target acts of harm such as homosexual acts of gang-rape, prostitution, molestation, promiscuity, sex acts in idol worship, etc. It further demonstrates that the Bible does not explicitly condemn consensual same-gender God-centered monogamous, life-long unions. However, it must be acknowledged that despite this information, the Bible still does not explicitly mention support of same-gender unions. This lack of mention does not prove condemnation, but it also does not prove explicit acceptance, as the Bible does not mention every matter, but does speak to every person. Although much evidence can be gathered that it is not condemned, due to the lack of word-for-word explicit Scriptural acceptance, one must rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to do the Will of God in faith for their own life. We are explicitly taught to act according to bestowing love to God and others and flee from harming God and others. One should ask, what then will bear the most Spiritual fruit; To condemn, suppress, or express love?

      If you have a homosexual orientation, it is best to ask God how He can use this for His glory in light of His grace. For some, it may be a call to celibacy to honor God and be a positive testimony to others with the same conviction. For others, they may be convicted to have liberty to be in a God-centered same-sex union to honor God and be a positive testimony to others with the same conviction. Lastly, with the most warning, some may be called into a heterosexual union despite their lack of heterosexual attractions to honor God and be a positive testimony to others with the same conviction. This last one has a warning attached only because it can easily cause harm to the heterosexual spouse and give false hope to others, but in some rare cases, this can be a positive testimony and has the potential blessing of dual-biological children. Furthermore, there are those who were sexually abused that sometimes identify with the homosexual sexual aspect of orientation but are in fact natural heterosexuals, so any claim of “change” in orientation must be viewed with great caution. Be sure to follow the guidance of God for your part in this rather than the fallible ideas of humans in this world. Regarding these things, remember Romans 12:2-5:
      “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the Will of God…For by the Grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sound judgment each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many parts and the parts do not have all the same function. So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually parts one of another.”

      Furthermore, we must admit that the original first design mentioned in the Bible is marriage between a male and female. It has been shown to me that this saying “the two shall become one flesh” means that the two (male and female) shall become one flesh (produce a child.) I am the one flesh of the two of my parents, as are all of you. The first creation design was in fact male and female for this reason of continuation, and we know that the perfect eternal New Creation has no focus on gender. We are not yet in the New Creation, however, procreation is no longer mandatorily commanded, as even Jesus says “not everyone can accept this saying, but only to those to whom it was given.” (Matthew 19:11.) We are also told that “in the beginning, God created them male and female,” but now we are told “we are no longer male and female, but one in Jesus Christ.” (Matthew 19:4/Mark 10:6, Galatians 3:28). Interestingly, the Greek word used for “female” (thélus, strong number 2338, 5 occurrences) only in these above verses AND in Romans 1:26,27 is an ADJECTIVE, not a noun. So as a descriptive word, it is a type of female meaning “a woman with nursing breasts” which shows its tie to procreation. So it would not be an error to reflect the New Creation which ignores gender rather than the old first creation that demands marital procreation of the two becoming one flesh. This is not to say that all should stop procreation, but that it is of our own free will to do so, just as Jesus confirms.

      The original first design for marriage does not prove that same-gender marriages are illegitimate to God, but rather that they are an adaptation to the blueprint of marriage presented in Scripture as a God-centered lifelong monogamous covenant. Just as the message came “first to the Jew, then to the Gentile,” the blueprint for marriage became known first to the heterosexual, then to the homosexual. Romans 11 gives the image of an Olive tree as the family of God. The first “natural branches” represent the Jews as God’s first chosen people. The “branches grafted into the Olive tree” represent the Gentiles who were “grafted in contrary to nature” (Romans 11:24). Let me now make a symbolic comparison. So if the original first design of marriage was between a male and female, these are like the first natural branches. Now as for a marriage between the same-gender, these are like the branches grafted in despite being contrary to the natural branches. It should be acknowledged that Biblical linguistics show more than a symbolic comparison. The Greek phrase “contrary to nature” (“para physin,” Strong numbers 3884 & 5449, phrase – 2 occurrences) in this verse about God’s acceptance of the unnatural Gentiles is the exact same as the Greek phrase for “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26. Once again, this Greek phrase only occurs twice in all of Scripture in Romans 1:26 and Romans 11:24. So let us not dishonor either type of the branches, the natural first nor the unnatural grafted, as it warns, “Do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, consider this: You do not support the Root, but the Root supports you.” (Romans 11:18). So be humbled by His amazing grace and know that you are loved by Him despite the prideful condemnation from the world. This is my conviction of faith as it pertains to these things…

      With this said, one must pray for discernment for the Will of God in their own life regarding these matters. It is best to always remember that we are all sinners and need the redemptive power of grace offered through the blood sacrifice of the One and Only Savior, Yeshua Ha-Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah). If you are in a romantic same-sex union, pray for it to be sanctified by the grace of God. Not because you believe it is otherwise a sin, but because all marriages should be sanctified for the glory of Yahweh! We must remember, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy!” (Acts 10:15). Keep Him first in everything that you do and never forget the grace bestowed on all of us as fallen sinners. Remember that we are all sinners worthy of death, “but you were washed, you were sanctified and you were justified in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11). So with this said, pray for your role with Scriptural knowledge and thank Yahweh for His grace offered through His Son. Always remember His words: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in your weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9).
      ———————————————————-

      So I close this letter in hopes that you have a clearer idea of these things. We do live in a fallen world and fallen condition and all rely on the Grace of God for sanctification. We go forward in life with what we are given and try our best to exemplify the love of Christ on our journey. If you were to see homosexuality as an innate uncontrolled condition, then one must work with what we are given in light of His grace. For me, being in heterosexual relationships caused me to sin which produced bad fruit. To be celibate caused me such excruciating loneliness because I was not given the Spiritual gift of celibacy which caused me to be suicidal and upset with God which produced bad fruit. So the alternative was to make a covenant before God with a woman I have known for over half my life. She was my best friend long before anything else, but regardless I am deeply in love with her and she with me. We have grown together in The Lord and seek to put Him first in everything. We spend more time in prayer and Biblical conversation than anyone else I know. We truly seek to honor God with what we have been given and have full peace that He has sanctified our relationship which is a marriage covenant. The evidence is shown by the good Spiritual fruit which has increased in abundance more together than all the years of being lost and apart. She has an enormously strong faith that has multiplied more as an adult than before we were together. So with full peace I know that God has brought us together and is a testimony to others with the same conviction. Furthermore, our union has been a testimony to the exceeding and abundant grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it shows His mercies in all the variance of His creation.

      So lastly, I do really feel I can help you as you have helped me. I am a very caring and compassionate soul and feel very strongly about our contact being of God’s Will. May our personal differences on this one topic not get in the way. We don’t have to discuss our differences in beliefs at all if you don’t want to. I just simply know I am supposed to be here for you as a sister in Christ. I pray for you daily Xavier. Thank you for helping me as well.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti
      P.S. I will read the other link you provided and re-read the first one as soon as I can. I have just have much to do in the next few weeks but I will read this with an open heart and mind, as I hope you will do the same of my writing… Also take into consideration that your situation is completely different from mine and should not be compared as totally relatable (in regards to homosexuality.) So do pray for discernment, please.
      P.S.S. I will edit the errors in your comments for you as soon as I have time, okay? 🙂 I really must go for now though! I’m sorry!

  38. Xavier says:

    Another short comment, please could you work your magic editing on my typos, in my comments? Too many of them, haha.. Bye, enjoy a good weekend! 🙂

  39. Gary says:

    Moanti,

    I have a question:

    Leviticus 18:22 in Masoretic Hebrew is: w’et-zäkhär lo tish’Kav mish’K’vëy iSHäh Tôëväh hiw

    literally translated word for word as: “Therefore, man not lie bed woman abomination it.” using the Lexicon Concordance and Strongs..

    This is translated by most Bibles as “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, that is abomination.”

    mish’K’vëy is used 46 times in the Hebrew Bible; 34 as bed, 4 as bedchamber, 1 as couch and 7 used in various ways, including this one and only time in Leviticus 18:22 meaning: “as with”

    Is this not a mis-translation? Why would that word be used this one time as “as with.”

    I would think the translation should be: Thou shall not lie in a woman’s bed, it is abomination.”

    What is your opinion?

    • Hi Gary!
      Thanks for your insights! You are correct that the literal Hebrew translation really doesn’t seem to be in line with the traditional translation. Mishkavey (root word- mishkab) is only in reference to a bed…. So to say “as with” is misleading comparative language that does not truly exist in this verse. Furthermore, tishkav (root word- shakab) is only shown in a sexual context in Scripture to mean rape or deceptive coerced sex… So even to call it “to lie with” is misleading… Also we’et is most commonly translated as “against.” So perhaps the literal translation could be “Against a man not rape/coerce sex bed woman.” On a further note, I have been studying Romans 1:26-27 and have found a lot to be a single translation, like how “bed” is “as with” in this verse… I’ll have to share more of that later when I’ve completed my studies. But one big thing is that the word for “women” in the verse is an adjective, not a noun! So how can we even be talking about women?! Even when it says “male with male,” one of the words for male is an unused word so it may not even be talking about multiple men!!! It is “male with (unknown word.) I’ll share more of this later, but I encourage you to go to http://www.interlinearbible.com and look at each Greek word and compare it contextually to other verses to see all the differences. It’s quite fascinating. Clearly the modern translators have taken much personal liberty on this topic! Thanks for your questions!

  40. Xavier says:

    Hi, Moanti,

    Thank you, for your kindness and care. Please rest assured I pray for you as well, permanently.

    Yes, we should avoid any useless debate. I have no practical experience of homosexuality myself, beside that sexual assault leaving me under the definitive impression these actions are unjustifiably detrimental and harmful to a person’s dignity, God given gender identity and purpose.. .

    It may come out as insensitive and selfish but I do not wish to know about homosexuality either, I simply trust God Judgment on that matter, and leave it at that. I am and have had heavily tormented myself over my approach of this, am I fair to do so..? is it is something I must change? Or am I really just another homophobe, lacking charity..?

    Truely, I am “androphobe”, as I have unvoluntarily developed reactions of defiance out of fear of another abuse, with my peers, any peers of the same gender… I can’t find homophobia in me as I react as such for any an all men, even my friends engaged to their wives or giirflriends. and lesbianism only raise my moral disapproval as a sensibility disorder and “what a shame” in the sense, what a missed opportunity, what a sad thing to happen, My current work is to even the two in my understanding, and stop seeing masculine homsoexuality as the top of the sins, to impartially deal with female and male ones as just a sin among otjher sins..

    About your blog and dedication to legitimate homosexuality by God’s Word.. I can’t support you in that, it is your fight and I am sorry to say, not the good fight.. the duty of man, the good fight is “to fear God and keep his commandments”,.. The sober truth that you are avoiding and confusing by all means at your disposal, as I stated it before is clear water.. God does not legitimate any sexual activity or relationships beside that of the Biblical Marriage, and conjugal union. It is impossible to exclude homsoexual acts from that Judgment and “blueprint” to apply for today’s people, not jeopardize the majority for, sorry but a very small portion of the Humankind population, even so few interested and able of a commited relmationship, by studies..

    Homsoexual temptations do not warrant a licence because they may come from the same genuine love than heterosexual ones, this is a claim and an easy way, comapring what is not comaprable.. Love does exist in these relationships, yes The love is not the problem, if it is rooted in friendship. The use of another member of the same gender as a suitable partner, as an imitation of Godly, conjugal ways is the abomination.. Even more so, casual sex of any kind..

    It is harsh, I am a harsh person, a severe man when it comes to moral laws.. But I think I am as such doing the right thing, I stay true and faithful to what is really taught in Scriptures on that particular issue, imparrtially. As God does not favor anyone, or discriminate anyone.. that is the intetnion of Paul’s word, we are one in Jesus christ as there is no condition to be met, we all are elligible to Salvation regardless of social and political, religious status, gender, and yes, sexual orientation too ..Amen.

    I am sorry, to tell you I won’t even challenge my views but I am honest to say it. I can’t find any benefit, I distrust liberal claims as dangerous, and as a homosexual person yourself, you can’t be objective on your Biblical studies, it is only human to stand your own ground, that is totally understandable but please consider, just like in police / judicial cases, no judge or attorney, no officer or recruit will be allowed to get involved, if they have personal ties to the case at hand.. .

    Oh, and I thought you would like to put a face on me, so I am inviting you to follow my good old Twitter account, if you wish? I find it a good first step to our friendship and common fellowship? I also wish by my further comments, if I do contribute again, to can ease it, and avoid confrontations of our differing opinions, but focus on the common goal that is about leading more people to God’s merciful, redeeming LOVE.. Amen.

    Bless you,
    Xavier.

    PS : how can I give you a link to my Twitter, without it publicly pasted in the comments? If you would like to, and please.. ^^

    • Hello Xavier,
      Thanks for your reply. I would like to talk with you further outside of this forum, but sad to say, I don’t have a Twitter and don’t engage in any social media. But I can email you. Your email address shows up privately in my comments section, so as long as this is a correct email that you entered, let me know and I will send you a message in the coming days.

      Although I don’t see much benefit in engaging in debate with you, I do feel it’s only fair for me to make some concluding comments in reply to what you have said to me. Then we can “let it rest” and pray on The Lord for guidance. but first I want to say that I do still understand where you are coming from. I feel that your trauma has caused so much pain that it’s made you that much more emphatic about homosexuality being a sin. I feel that if you were to do otherwise at this point, it would make you feel a sense of powerlessness. Spreading this doctrine of homosexuals sinfulness publicly in forums to them feels like a justifiable tool of strength against the one who abused you. I just want to commune with you as a fellow believer with love. I believe that you can gain back your power through the loving grace of God, rather than to feed into anger and fear, all the while standing on the loving grace of our Lord.

      So now I go onto responses to a few things you said and hope afterwards we can move on from this. Just as you say I am biased for being a homosexual, you’re views are biased in light of your past trauma. Of course your views are the traditional modern majority view, so it doesn’t take much thinking to believe in them, as I’m sure you held these views before your trauma. The alternate view that I hold is found in Scripture when looking at the original language in which the Bible was written which I trust more than the varied English translations on ALL matters… I have been studying Hebrew and Greek for some time now for the sole purpose of understanding the Scriptures at its core level and have found incredible benefits, as it’s helped me grow Spiritually on many Biblical matters. But the bottom line is that this alternate way of seeing these verses justly demonstrates that homosexuality is not condemned as a whole, but rather the homosexual acts causing harm which are closer to what you have been through. The attempted gang-rape in Sodom in Genesis 19 can be proved by cross reference to Judges 19. The passages in Leviticus do not literally compare males having sex with males “as with” females. Read it in Hebrew for yourself (be sure to click on the actual Hebrew word for its contextual definition in other passages.) The word used for “to lie with” in regards to lying with a male is always used in the context of rape and coerced sex (like what you went through) all throughout Scripture. The word translated only since 1946 into “homosexuals” means “male, beds,” or “a man (singular) in many beds (plural). Many modern Bibles actually admit this if you read the footnotes, as they believe the word to mean “male prostitute” and malakos representing the adult males who kept boys as sex slaves. These footnotes admit to the translators’ uncertainty of these words, but clearly THEIR bias has come into these translations. The King James Version had a closer representation as calling it “ABUSERS of themselves with mankind.” Any form of abuse, prostitution or promiscuity cannot be related to a monogamous relationship, can it? The passage in Romans 1 doesn’t offer a command (such as “do not do this thing”), but talks about what occurred in Rome and is clearly tied to acts of pagan sex acts in idol worship, as the believers in God knew God, but exchanged worship of God for idols and even committed these vile acts. This is of course not an adequate summary, as their is much more evidence in Scripture to show these things, even more so than proof of condemning homosexuality as a whole. One has to be willing to research these things to see the evidence and should not simply dismiss it without a thoughtful and prayerful study. If one is not willing to fully research the Bible in its original language and context on this issue, then they should not claim it as false because they have no authority due to lack of knowledge. As even the Bible warns, “If one speaks before he hears, it is a folly to him.” (Proverbs 18:13.) In other words, if one condemns something without exploration, it is foolishness. In simple terms, it is like saying that you don’t agree with a book that you’ve never read based on the bad review of someone else who hasn’t read it. How can either know they disagree with the book if neither have read it? This is the folly of the one who holds the traditional view which often times flat out refuses to look at the origins made known in Scripture. If they fully know both and still disagree, this is a respected belief, because at least they have been made aware of each in its entirety and made a clear decision. I don’t expect for you to ever change your view, but would hope that you would at least come to the knowledge that there are 2 legitimate ways to view it. You never have to agree with the alternate view, but it would be wise to know it all first before saying you don’t agree with it, lest you ignore the Scriptural evidence.

      You yourself said that there is no sin that is not of ones own choice, as your words were “there is no involuntary sin.” Yet you should know as a living human that sexual attractions are not of ones own choice and are entirely involuntary. So if homosexuality in all contexts is a sin, then by living I am involuntarily sinning by having feelings for the same-gender more than a friend. I do not hold to liberal views simply because I have involuntary attractions to the same-gender. I am in fact very conservative in my views on matters, and just happen to see the Scriptures in a different light on this because I’ve thoroughly studied them.

      As far as my view not being valid due to personal ties… Here is the main problem. Most heterosexuals wouldn’t care to study any deeper because it doesn’t personally affect them. So it is usually by those who have a personal connection that would care enough to even study this topic more deeply. It is unwise and unjust to use “personal connection” as the basis to simply dismiss it all as false. Does God never grant anyone with true discernment on any issue which personally affects them? Does God only grant true discernment to those who don’t personally relate to an issue? Can we always know for sure that if they have a personal tie to an issue that they will always be false? I can understand things should be viewed with caution due to personal bias, but I would not go as far as to dismiss all personally tied topics as 100% false all the time. To do so would certainly be limiting, would it not? Paul himself was a Gentile and gives the clearest examples in Scripture that Salvation is open to Gentiles as well as Jews. Jesus’ focus in His ministry was clearly with the Jews in Israel, as He commanded to His disciples, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5,6). Jesus also clearly stated, “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:26). If the Scriptures of Paul were not provided, many could claim that Salvation is only open to Jews in Israel and “whosoever” was only really Jesus talking directly to the Jews. But we are told by Paul that the Gospel of Salvation came “FIRST to the Jew, then to the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16). Does Paul’s personal bias of being a Gentile himself make this Scriptural claim of Salvation to Gentiles invalid? Certainly not! We are all open to the Salvation of Christ so there should be no off-topic Scripture from studying just because of someone’s personal ties to a particular area. This would be like saying, “you have cancer, so you should not try to find a cure because it personally affects you. You should leave it up to the people who don’t have cancer and don’t know anyone with cancer to find a cure… But with cancer, you really are a small part of the population, so you shouldn’t expect healthy people to spend their time trying to help you since you’re going to die anyway. You should just accept that you have cancer and let those without cancer enjoy their lives.” Do you at least see my point in that? I have spent more years with your exact beliefs (that all homosexuality is a sin) than I have otherwise. My old beliefs were purely tied to the people who told me it was wrong and not doing any research to explore the verses original meaning. But this is obviously a sensitive topic which we can agree to disagree, as I am assured of my Salvation in Christ, as I truly have a personal, active, close and loving relationship with Yahweh only made possible by the grace of my redemption in Yeshua. I really don’t want this difference in translation on this one topic to hinder us… As I do feel God moving us in this friendship for a reason. So please forgive me for speaking about this once more. I will only say one more thing, which is to show you my link about Christ and the church. Even ignoring “the gay stuff,” I know you will find this enlightening as a Believer to see the mystery solved of marriage being like Christ and the Church. So I ask that you read this for your own knowledge:
      https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/can-a-gay-marriage-reflect-christ-and-the-church/

      Moving forward, I feel that I can help you with your daily life and work through your past trauma so that you are able to one day have same gender friendships without fear. I want to help you in any way I can and feel our friendship union is important in this healing process. We can stay out of the Biblical realm in regards to sexual orientation, but sorry to say, I think it might be necessary for you to learn more about the homosexual orientation itself for you to ever move past your fear. This is because I can see many misconceptions that you have that are causing a hinderance from understanding the difference between abusers who seek to destroy and take advantage and passifist who have no interest in you (the latter is the vast majority.) Even if you don’t want to learn about it, it would benefit you to not have a view based on invalidated statistics, but actual people. You do not have to compromise your beliefs in homosexuality’s sinfulness to have a better understanding of sexual orientation. You can easily keep this belief and still understand it more to your benefit. I do have a suggestion which you may pray about and take your time to build up to this, if needed… There are gay Christians who hold to the traditional view that all homosexuality is a sin. These gay Christians believe just as you do and have committed to a life of celibacy. The website, http://www.gaychristian.net has forums for all gay Christians and any heterosexual Christians who wish to positively contribute to the forums. The “Side B” forum are these gay Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin like you believe. So maybe one day you could join the website to talk with some of these gay Christians who hold your beliefs. This would be in order to receive positive support for yourself by those that you fear. It may help you not be so afraid in knowing that there are many gays out there that do not wish to harm you in any way. There is also the “Side A” forum, who also would not seek to harm you, but they have my same belief that God sanctifies Christian same-gender monogamous life-long unions. so I would think you’d feel more comfortable in Side B. It is not a place for debate anyway, as the rules of the website prohibit this. It is only a place for support and I can imagine that you would find many people compassionate of your situation and willing to help you feel safe. Please just pray about this before you decide. I will not pressure you in the least. In fact, I am sensing that this may be something that should be considered further down the road and not now. At this point, something like that may feel like Daniel going into the Lion’s den, but at some point you may realize that it’s just a den of friendly kittens. 😉 But keep it in mind for prayer.

      I think its important to not just find comfort in people who take pleasure in the destruction of gays. I speak of those who spew hatred with no basis but to build up their own pride. I feel that you can move past your fears and begin to heal of the aftermath of your trauma by the grace of God and talking to me as a gay individual as a start. I will always continue to pray for you as well Xavier. May God help us grow together.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      • Xavier says:

        Bonjour, Moanti,

        Please take rest, the less words, the better, my friend. Just, please know I wholeheartedly agree with most of your beliefs, and of course, support you in the truth our contemporary idea of a sexual orientation is not in Scriptures, the modern understanding of persons with a seemingly permanent and “natural” homosexual orientation, is not in Scriptures.

        That is, at first glance normal and obvious, as Scriptures were recorded, written long before our time..But it is not enough for true beleivers, we must understand our God is all knowing and could not forget that essential aspect of reality in His Word for us, or how, and why is it not spoken and shared, or is it really a discriminating God we have..? Truely, these notions are modern and man made, from the late centuries psychologists to categorize our humankind in select groups..Though, if they are not in Scipitures, the fair conclusion is, they do not have a reason to be in Scriptures, they are not a necessary knowledge to have in our faith, in the Revelation of God to us. The simple truth is, to God, we are men and women.

        HOWEVER, as we did agree, there is no unvolontary sin, a sin must be a deliberate thinking, or saying, or acting contrary to what God says to be his Will and Way for us.. To pratice homosexuality, one must engage in it, therefore it undoubtedly qualifies as a potential sin, regardless of the modern idea of an orientation of a person, as unfair as it may sound.. The same is true for persons subjected to, say, unwanted incestuous tendencies, to name the most relevant and honorable analogy, that is also condemned in Leviticus, and by the most of today’s societies..

        Yet, you don’t find many incestuous persons “out of the closet”, less so incestuous Christians in ideology crusade on the internet . Trust me on that probability, If the practice of homosexuality pass as acceptable in some cases, by the Chruch’s traditional teachings, the rest will follow, with brothers and sisters, mothers and daugthers engaged in “incestuous monogamous loving an commited relationships” either, the pandora box..

        That is the awful truth, the reason one can’t gamble in manipulating Scriptures to fit heir needs, and the reason we must be severe and firm in our morals and ethics, if we agree to surrender to the authority of the Bible for ourselves, to be God’s people, grounded in God’s Word, we must agree God knows best, trust and obey. I find this analogy with a suffered incestuous orientation a relief, that Scriptures and GOD are not discriminative against homosexual persons, unfairly singled out to endure this trial and struggle, but indeed included and thought of right from the start just like everyone of us and anyone’s neighbor, as trust me on that too, it is every man and woman’s battle with sexuality and affectivity disorders, in our fallen world and over-sexualized, apostate Western societies…

        I repeat myself but once for all, from Genesis to revelation, God’s Will and Way for our human sexuality is clear water, it is designed for intimate bonding and reproducing within the Biblical Marriage, set as being between a man and a woman. The family unit as the home, the heart, the start of humankind, of tribes, of society..

        In the light of that Biblical TRUTH, it is not a too strong word to curse sexual trasngressions to defend His Holy Marriage as “abominations” and “detestable”, it not possible to defend the practice of homsoexuality, simply. Especially NOT as a person confessing Christianity, I am sorry, Moanti, but there is no way to reconcile Christianity and homosexuality in its practice, they are definitive opposite.

        The only viable way, as I pointed out is to acknowledge God has condemend homosexual practcies as unfit, as transgressive against his Biblical Marriage for us, to repent and seek to stop sinning in this way, gradually..

        My only question left to ask you, by now is this.. Do you believe the practice of homosexuality to be a sin..?

        Please answer me in all honesty, if you agree to, but simply by “yes” or “no”, being wordy and argumentive is never the way.. Christ says, it is actually the devil speaking if we do that, beyond our basic “yes” or “no”..

        For now, I wish you could just relax and, don’t take it to heart too much, surrender to God in everything.. Bless you, Moanti. And yes, you can email me at the adress I wrote, in my comments.

        Take care,
        Xavier.

      • Angela says:

        And yet the Hebrew words describing David’s and Jonhatan.

        ““And it came to pass, when he (David) 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.” I Samuel 18:1-3, KJV

        The Hebrew word translated in English as knit: “the soul of Jonathan was (qashar) knit with the (nephesh) soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own (nephesh) soul.”

        Qashar (knit), when linked with nephesh, (soul) as here, refers to being romantically in love with someone. Nephesh conveys the idea of soul, self, life, desire, emotion, passion. In this context, nephesh refers to the seat of emotions and passions while knit describes an activity which involves the mind, the will and the character.

        Crown Prince Jonathan is the only member of King Saul’s family with whom David has a close relationship at this time. The phrase “one of the twain” is more understandable and makes more sense as referring to Jonathan and David, who did already have a publicly acknowledged partnership, 1 Samuel 18:1-3, than Princess Merab and David, who are never said anywhere in the Bible to have a relationship. King Saul’s eldest daughter, Princess Merab is never a significant factor in the Jonathan and David story.

        The Hebrew word ahab can mean several things depending on the context in which it is used.

        The Hebrew word ahab, used to describe Jonathan’s love for David, occurs 208 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. It is translated love in the KJV 169 times and occurs in our story in 1 Samuel 16:21, 18:1, 3, 16, 20, 20:17 and II Samuel 1:26.

        The Holy Spirit used ahab in Genesis 29:20 to describe Jacob’s love for his wife Rachel and the love of the Shulamite girl for Solomon in Song of Solomon 3:1-4.

        The love of the Shulamite girl for Solomon is described as coming from her nephesh-soul, just as Jonathan’s love for David sprang from his nephesh-soul.

        Scripture uses ahabah to describe sexual love in the context of opposite sex marriage in Proverbs 5:19. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon defines ahab as “human love for a human object, including:

        1. love of man toward man,

        2. love of man toward himself,

        3. love between man and woman,

        4. love as sexual desire.”

        How can we determine if ahab refers to romantic love or love as sexual desire, between two men? Context gives us insight because the way ahab is translated depends on context.

        In 1 Samuel 16:21, ahab is used of King Saul’s love for David. Nothing in the context indicates romantic, sexual attraction between Saul and David. Therefore we conclude ahab refers to non-romantic love between men in this usage.

        In 1 Samuel 18:16, ahab is used of the love of all Israel and Judah for David. Nothing in the context indicates romantic, sexual attraction between Israel, Judah and David. Therefore we conclude that ahab refers to non-romantic love in this usage.

        In 1 Samuel 18:20, where Michal is said to love David, it is universally believed that ahab refers to the romantic, sexual love of Princess Michal for David. The Hebrew word for love = ahab has not changed. What has changed is the context. Ahab in 1 Samuel 18:20 refers to the love of a woman for a man, both of whom eventually enter a marriage covenant.

        So when we see that God the Holy Spirit uses the Hebrew word ahab in 1 Samuel 18:3 to describe Jonathan’s love for David, it makes perfect sense, based on everything else the Bible tells us about the Jonathan and David relationship and the partnership covenant they formed, to conclude that they loved each other romantically.

      • Xavier says:

        Hi, Moanti,

        As usual with me, I forget some things, and wish to edit my messages, and typos, but I can’t lol..

        Just a quick note, to kindly assure you, I have never mocked anyone to my knowledge, and am not participating in any debates or specific forums against gay persons, but all were occasional, on video game forums over general discussions. You are, as far as I know the second gay person I directly talk too through a forum / board / blog, actually. The other one was an anonymous gay person on that gaming forum, I learned later over time is a male, and confessed no faith in any god.

        So my “enemies” were in fact random “hetero” social justice warriors, which I came to despise to a deadly level, as they resorted to label me as homophobe, ignorant and so on, in that you are correct. Because I can’t stand lies and people working to deceive.. More so because they were wrong and judging, attacking me personally when I stand against a destructive practice, and even more so as I confessed you, I feel as a homosexual because of my trauma, while I do not experience any precise attraction, or fantasy toward my gender and peers, but a real pscyhological blockage leaving me like a wild animal hunted down, threatened, no image, no thoughts, only the horror of abuse welling up as an irrational fear, not related, directed to homosexual persons but all men in general..

        And yes, I want to get out of this state, but I am now regretting my decision to write here, as it is becoming more and more clear, as Christ says, one person can’t serve two masters, in a “gay chrsitian” situation they must make the choice, of which community to join, and what God to trust and obey.. The one of the Revelation, or an idol suiting their need.. I am not one to point fingers, but Angela, in your comments, is, to me, no Christian. To dirty the friendship of Biblical figures as homosexual couple, to negate the validity of the Ten commandments for believers are proof enough.. But I don’t judge in a definitive manner, we are all subjected to changes unlike God, and pray she can change her obvious rebellion, the limit is at our last breath, I think so..

        I am waiting now for your answer about the practice of homosexuality, is it a sin against what god says is His Will and Way for our human sexuality, as men and women, to be sure about your own position as a Christian.. But I fear to know already your answer, that is why please, use yes or no without any justification or nuancing?

        Do take care, God save..
        Xavier.

  41. Top Gun says:

    Hi Moanti
    It’s been a while since I commented. To your previous comment yes I took that verse out of context. After much prayer and study, seeking to know the one true God, to tell you the truth I have come to know the characteristics of God and I’m stilling slowly but surely learning. Hopefully this will help you and others who read this.

    Now before I get there I want to ask you a few questions regarding your last response to Xaiver. Toward the end of your response, you gave reasons as to why you’re in a homosexual relationship. The first was that you would sin in a heterosexual relationship? I’m not sure what makes you different from those who struggle in sin in context i.e lusting for someone whom your not married to? (Believe me many Christians struggle with this) I could give the same reason or somewhat similar and say, being single, sin takes me captive so I’ll enter a homosexual relationship. See the reason we sin is not because sin is so powerful that the new creation living inside us cannot liberate us from this bondage. NO!! My King and Saviour defeated the grave! Defeated death! Sin has NO power when my King steps in.

    The true reason most(I’m talking about repented, baptised with water and the Holy Spirit, believers who seem to still be in bondage in some areas of their lives) still struggle with sin is that they have not yet had the revelation of the truth that sets us free. Maybe they have read it but still lack faith in what the bible proclaims. See this is the by-product of preaching and taking power away from the new creation, by preaching that we are still sinners, even though he who is in us is greater than he who is in the world.

    Romans 6 is the revelation that people need. That plus to know who God really is but they have to have the faith to trust in the promise and proclamation of God over our lives.

    I’ll come back to that because that leads into one of the characteristics of God. So your second reason was that you weren’t given the spiritual gift of celibacy. I understand that, I really do but you have to realise that there a many who don’t believe in and follow The Lord Jesus but have this wonderful gift. That is just that, a gift. It’s not spiritual in a sense that the Holy Spirit gifts you with it.

    Now onto the characteristics of God. Matthew writes that many false prophets will arise and deceive many and the result of that is that lawlessness will be abound, the love of many will grow cold. This is talking about people within the church. Because in the next verse it says, he who endures to the end will be saved.

    We take one point from this that we are starting to see today . Lawlessness will abound. How could this be when Paul clearly teaches in Romans 6 we should NOT continue to sin (live in sin)? But we find out where lawlessness will arise from. Before I show you I want to quote something from Matthew. “Do not give that which is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, least they trample them under their feet and turn again and tear you”. We have to understand this clearly, Jesus is teaching us a powerful lesson here. Don’t take what is Holy and your pearls and throw them to pigs and dogs. Why? Because they will misunderstand that which is holy, trample upon it and then turn to us and tear us apart.

    Who is holy? God. 1 characteristic of God. What else is the characteristic of God? Love? yes. Righteousness? Well surely yes because in Romans 6 we leave the bondage of sin and become servants of righteousness. Consuming fire? Most definitely. This plus many others. Now I will show you where the church today has gone wrong. Today in the church we have preached the love of God i.e. God is love, God loves everyone, God accepts everyone for who they are. We have preached this to a dying world, to the wicked. If we study and read the book of Acts, we see something completely different. Nowhere is the love of God preached to the sinners. No the righteousness of God was preached.

    God is a righteous judge. Yes our God has killed the disobedient both in the Old Testament and the New Testament (Ananias and Sapphira believe it or not, they were believers but that’s for another time). It’s simple, if you preach a different god from that who is in the Old Testament, you are committing idolatry because you are creating a god to suit you.

    Today the church is hurting because MANY use the thing that is holy, God’s love, as an excuse for lawlessness. We have taken what is holy and what is only meant for those who follow the Lord Jesus in complete faithful obedience, and thrown it to dogs and pigs. Try it, when you speak to someone who despises the Living God and uses this very thing, the Love of God, to paint God as tyrant and a monster, try going out of your way to prove in scripture the reasons a Loving God would do such to the wicked. See the contradiction here. How could a loving God do such?

    You know what I say in response? Why does a righteous and holy God do such to the wicked? The answers to that in the bible is endless.

    Now if I had to choose between those 4 characteristics that I mentioned above, if I only had to choose 1 that best describes who God really is, I chose a Holy God. Truely the love of our Holy God is shown to those who obey and follow Jesus.

    We cannot know the God of Love UNTIL we have godly fear within us. Remember, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and understanding. We receive the fear of God, godliness, through Devine power and revelation of who He really is, 2 Peter 1:3-5. True repentance comes from godly fear. Take a look at King David. He had so much godly fear that he did not miss a beat when God revealed his sin to him. This true repentance is what actives God’s mercy upon our lives. And this is when He begins to show us the Love He now has for us.

    To why I chose Holy….this is the only characteristic of God that has so much emphasis in the bible. Similar to italics and bold, the Hebrew emphasis was repetition. E.g Lord,Lord. Or verily, verily. These repeated words give us a feeling of emphasis and conveys what the writer really wants us to focus on. Onto the word holy, it is the only word that is used to describe the Living God which is repeated more times than ANY other word in the entire bible. This word is not taken to the second degree but to the third. Rev 4:8. “…and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” No greater statement made in the bible of what God is like and who He is. And I repeat the only word repeated more times consecutively than any other repeated words.

    Our love has to be pure and our love has to be from a Holy God not from the carnal man and carnal thinking. The Love of God is only given to us through the Holy Spirit.

    • Angela says:

      This makes me wonder hat about science as has prove there are genes that can cause many things such as Albion . For all time and today many still time it’s a curse from God. There are many times such as Down syndrome which is gene. Also the simple fact that homosexuality as been well in nature by that I mean actually homosexuality animals as couples . I know many dislike when talking about science but still.

      • Top Gun says:

        Angela wake up! We live in a broken world. All of creation is under the curse of sin and that does not exclude animal kind. Everything that transgresses against the Law of the righteous Creator leads to death. We don’t see immortal animals do we? And why do we look to nature for some form of morality? There is only one moral giver and that giver is Holy, righteous, merciful, and loving.

        And I’m not against science in any way, science that does not deny the qualities of the invisible Creator, but to me personally I try not to get carried away with it because we as believers live by faith NOT by sight.

        You either please God by faith or you don’t…no buts no ifs. Fear God is all I’m saying and if you don’t know how, read the bible from cover to cover, and notice who God’s character is. If that doesn’t instil godly fear ASK for revelation but I warn you be prepared to react to what might be revealed to you. Trust me you will change radically.

    • Top Gun says:

      Excuse the typos it’s difficult writing on a mobile device

    • Hi there Top Gun,
      Thank you for writing me again… As I read your words, I can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit and have much joy, despite what you might be misinterpreting about me. Believe me, I understand. I have been especially focused on the Holiness of Yahweh and am in utter awe at His perfect Holiness! This has been the theme for me in my prayers of praise recently…and the verse you quoted (Revelation 4:8) has been on my lips in Hebrew, “Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh Adonai Elohim tz’va’ot. Asher hayah v’hoveh v’yavo!” (Revelation 4:8). So we have had the same focus in regards to this… Interesting that The Lord brought you back here at this exact moment as we experience these same things… I can assure you that the love of the One True Living God I do have, and I am coming into a better understanding of Him every day. I have been humbled indeed, and I fully recognize my sin nature and the Grace of the blood covenant of Yeshua which brings me my redemption! I know with this fact, that “what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15). He is the redeemer and I have more faith than ever before that I am accepted into His grace despite my unworthiness (as we are all unworthy.) I do not preach love as a cheap doctrine, but as the central theme of what the commandments sum up. If one bestows love to God and others, they will not harm them and all the commandments hang upon these 2 commands to love God with all your heart soul and mind and love others. So when I engaged in heterosexual relationships (which I had done outside of marriage which caused me to sin), I was not acting in love. My reasoning for doing so was to try to become straight, which was a selfish endeavor to seek approval at the expense of another. It made me end up hurting the men I was with, as I have no natural ability for romantic love towards them as hard as I tried. This made me end up feeling raped, although I was consenting. I said “yes” but my body screamed “no.” This was clearly not a healthy situation and produced bad fruit. So instead, I tried celibacy, but having a life knowing I would be alone forever was too much to bear, as I thrive on intimate connection (not sex!). Something more than a close friendship to someone could provide. To make a very long story short, I had periods of being in various relationships with women, which felt physically right, but I was in the belief of condemnation of homosexuality, so my relationship with God was not close and at odds. I felt He condemned me to hell for my expression of love, so I prayed and prayed for Him to deliver me. For years and through reparative therapy, this feeling of God as rejecting me from Salvation unless I gave up on my natural way to love (for me) made me at the brink of suicide. I felt cast out and hell bound.

      Finally, I came into the knowledge of the alternate view of Scripture on this topic, as well as other Bible verses of encouragement of God’s love for me and felt the Holy Spirit for the first time since my Baptism. I spent years in deep study of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and researching Biblical context. This is because I would not simply take someone at their word, but had to prove for myself if this alternate view could be legitimate, or simply a twisting of Scripture for self-justification based on meaningless conjecture. I take the Word of God VERY SERIOUSLY, so after studying for myself, I came into the knowledge that there is strong evidence in the original Scriptures that demonstrates that the Bible does not condemn all of homosexuality, but rather acts of same-sex harm. (All can be found in the article above when including the external links.) So with this new knowledge that did not automatically condemn me to hell for who I could love, I asked God to send me a Christian spouse who I could commit and put Him at the center, still being open to a heterosexual partnership if it were to be in God’s Will to give me those feelings. But instead, He sent me towards my Christian best friend who is a female. I have never felt so blessed and am assured with all my being that He has sanctified our relationship by the power of His grace. The blood of Yeshua should not be underestimated. We all live in this fallen world and have our struggles. But this I no longer see as a struggle, but an overcoming victory and testimony of the grace of God. I don’t expect you to understand, as most would not even give me a chance. But I know full well that Our King has overcome the world and broken the bondage of the sting of sin which is death. My spouse and I have a God-centered covenant and immerse our time spent together in the Word and prayer. Sex is not the focus, as it should not be in a heterosexual marriage. It is this love which is only made greater by our love for Him.

      Homosexuality has been an unfair target in the modern church which has caused the majority to run from God. Many say, “homosexuality is contradictory to Christianity” as if it’s a belief system that rejects God. It is not a belief system, nor a common “sexual temptation.” It is simply what we were given as an ability for romantic love. It’s not complicated. It’s just like heterosexual love and attraction. Just as I’m sure you wouldn’t have any romantic love for a male and couldn’t bring yourself to force this, it is equally as unnatural for us with the opposite gender, although many have tried to fit to the majority despite this aversion. So you may have misunderstood me as you said these were “the reasons” I was in a same-gender relationship. I was simply pointing out how to do otherwise was causing more harm and wedge between me and God.

      Back to the Holiness of Yahweh…. We must remember that despite our complete unworthiness as unholy sinners, Yahweh loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son to redeem us. We are told that we are made righteous through His Son, which shows the ever greater love that He has for us to accept us in His grace of forgiveness. Because we know that Yahweh is Holiness in all it’s completeness, then an attribute of holiness must be love, as we are told that He IS love in Scripture. People can misuse this, yes. But the true love of Yahweh is perfect, and we are told that perfect love casts out fear and we are not to fear His judgement AS BELIEVERS. So instead we can be in awe of His grace and spread the love that He gives to us to all mankind and multiply fruitfulness!

      When we love Him, we show this to follow His commands which is to love Him and bestow love to others. The destruction of the wicked is the destruction of the unloving who seek to poison others with their harm. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira serve as a lesson that Yahweh does not judge us by our outward works, but what dwells inward in the heart. Their crime may not seem severe, but the lie they told was rooted in selfishness which is by nature unloving towards God and others. As they kept the field for their own profits and did not give to their fellow believers. This charity is love, and the lack of love was brewing inside them. They serve as an example to weed out the corruption of unloving acts in the first church as they spread their message which had to be kept pure or it’s corruption could have poisoned the entire first church to spread a false doctrine rooted in hypocrisy. Yahweh did this to protect the church. But we must not misuse this historical incident to strike fear in the believer of God’s judgment. For we must have faith that we are no longer under condemnation do to the grace of His Son’s sacrifice. Yeshua taught his Disciples to be fishers of men, not hunters. There must be bait to fish, and this bait is God’s Divine love. When we preach terror of judgment, is this love really pure? Or do we act outwardly good to find favor but inwardly feel terror towards God? The “fear” of God is the awe and respect of His grace and perfect Holiness, not the terror of His judgment towards those that have a darkened heart. He is a righteous judge and knows the love we have for Him.

      The verse you stated about lawlessness increasing should be recognized in what it also mentions, which is that “their love grew cold.” So lawlessness goes hand in hand with a lack of love; lacking love towards God and others. We see this in our society in many facets, and one does not need to include “the growing acceptance of gay marriage” as an example of lawlessness to see the evidence of a decaying society in all of it’s loveless acts of harm and violence towards others. If this verse speaks to the church, then we can see that another problem in the modern church is conditional Salvation. With hearts grown cold, the exclusion of many potential believers has been rooted in hatred and pride. The bait of the fishers of men has become a bullet of fear. This is what I see. The “whosoever” in John 3:16 has been preached with an asterisk which does not bear good Spiritual fruit, but instead causes many to feel denied from Salvation.

      So I hope you can get a better idea of where I am coming from and don’t condemn me before you’ve studied the original Scriptures for yourself regarding this issue. May Yahweh, the God of Israel, continue to bless you in His knowledge. Thank you again for your words.
      Your Sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      • Top Gun says:

        Hi Moanti this relpy is in two sections sorry for making it long.

        Now you said that another problem in the modern church is conditional salvation. I really want to know who these churches are because they speak to true doctrine of Christ (Ok not all conditional salvation churches, apostasy and heresy is great these days). No really, when I first read this for myself because when others spoke of this “conditional salvation” I denied it and quoted the usual verses e.g. Ephesians 2:8-9. I tried to deny the fundamental doctrine of Christ, obeying.

        We take the word as it is, and we let it break our hearts down so that we may receive it with gladness. “Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;” Wait a minute, doesn’t the word of God say also “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Yes it does and no Jesus was not lying either. Continuing “but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

        I’ll come back to that continuing, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you….” WOW hold up for a second, aren’t these people obeying what Jesus commanded? And Jesus will tell them He never knew them? INSTANTLY, simple obedience is not enough and now we find out why…. “: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

        This resonates throughout the bible and Jesus simply speaks what is reiterated by the prophets and the apostles. Iniquity, lawlessness all the same, and the scary thing is, Jesus denies many who did great things, all because of them working lawlessness, iniquity.

        Question, is Jesus saying something here? Most definitely. Firstly, it’s obvious that no amount of good fruit you produce will guarantee salvation and a chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (Unconditional salvation rebuked by Jesus himself). So what then if not good fruit? Answer, it all has to do with the will of the Father. Yes! Previous verse. Wait what is the will of the Father? Is it John 6:40? Well yes that’s God’s will as well as 2 Timothy 3:12. In fact the will of God is the bible. BUT we have not found the will of God that relates to what Jesus is talking about.

        Should we say Romans 8:29? Yes because it is most definitely God’s will to conform us to the image of His Son. If we take this further, we come back to where we started, the Holiness of God. We are called to imitate Christ. “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:…. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” See, for the believer to enter unto salvation, one must continue in striving for perfectness. Keyword striving. We can never attain perfectness. Now the final nail in the coffin I’ll quote Peter who quoted scripture in the old testament, “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”

        Wait all this but I can’t do this on my own strength and isn’t it works salvation? Um I think not when all these are done by the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Holy Spirit we grieve when we commit what is unholy? We can live in holiness by living in the Spirit. In fact the bible tells us that by the Spirit the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit. Read the entire context of that Chapter Romans 8 and it says in summary, sin and death in flesh, righteousness and fulfillment of the law in Christ for those who walk after the Spirit.

        As you can see I barely scraped the topic of Holiness in my last comment and I’m pushing the number of words on this as I want to keep this reply short and easy to read whilst answering your points.

        So my challenge to you, are you living by the sermon on the Mount? (Many don’t obey in faithfulness and really lack awareness of the presence of the King Jesus) Yes many don’t to a point where they can’t ask of Jesus and receive His answers right away or even as simple as introducing people to Him. Are you obeying the command of Jesus telling those who have received to go out laying hands, baptising and bring people into repentance? (yes this truly is loving others, being sacrificial in everything we do, giving freely what we have received). But most importantly, are you striving to be Holy as He is Holy? *Remeber Holiness comes from waling after the Spirit*

      • Top Gun says:

        Second part:

        Trying to keep this short. “And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Notice what happen when Jesus started appearing to people speaking scriptures unto them, their hearts started to burn. What does the Matthew verse say, “their love grew cold”. As lawlessness creeps in, as we move away from scripture, our hearts start to grow cold toward not one another but the one True God. Take a look around, preach lawlessness and we’re all rejoicing about the “good” Grace of God. But start preaching obedience and the fear of God and guess what, people start to say but “how could a loving God…? Or “If this is God I’m, I’d rather…”

        But wait, the only thing or person that can set our hearts on fire is the all-consuming fire Himself through His Holy Spirit. The only reason lawlessness abounds is the lack of fear as this verse points out:
        “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.”
        This is the fear of God. This verse rings true when we look at another proverb “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”

        See by preaching the fear of the Lord men depart from evil and come to repentance, this is why righteousness was preached over love. Yes we were called fishers of men, but wise fishers of men, guided by the Holy Spirit. The wisdom of God is greater than ours, and God knows whats best, when He spoke utternace to the apsotles who than spoke the righteousness of God, God knew what he was doing.

        The fear of judgement that you speak of is cast out by the perfect love of God when we are made His children. 1 John 4:16. There is one instance where one could have the fear of judgement Heb 10:26-27. There has been much revealed too in these verses, especially the “knowledge of the truth” I’ll save that for another time.

        Now as for John 3:16, yes the only verse in the bible that people misconceive ONLY because of verses and chapters. Yes, everyone knows John 3:16 but do they know what John 3:14-15 says?
        “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” Now onto 16, “For God so…” how so? Read the previous verses. Verse 13 the story behind the serpent. That’s how so. God is willing and merciful to save those in the world. “….. loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

        Now here’s the crunch that we have to understand and grasp. Many people say “God loved the world sooo, sooo much that he gave…” Cause then when you get to next few verses we have a contradiction of this “huge”, romantic, burning, desiring, whatever you want to call it, love for the world. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Hmm so much for this great love. See when we bring a Holy God down to OUR level of understanding and thinking, the whole Gospel breaks. There is only one Gosepl and One God who was, who is and is to come.

        I said “yes” but my body screamed “no.” Sorry for being harsh but why do you let the flesh control you? Or rather why did you let the flesh control you?
        I definitely know you aren’t ignorant of scripture. The Spirit inside is constantly at war with the flesh. Without you having the need to go into detail, I know exactly what you mean. But Paul wrote great letters, teaching the saints there they are new creations in Christ, that they should kill the flesh daily, renew the mind and walk after the Spirit. These are there wait for people struggling in sin to read and allow God to reveal the truth and set them free.

  42. SA says:

    When we thing about it what about the words are weird for something for example Zera can mean semen and it is used in Lev

    http://allfaith.com/Grace/lev20.html

    Asernokoties is not for only homosexuality. How can you asernokoties your wife. Wasn’t translated until 1946 as homosexual.

    Sarakos Heteras means Alien Flesh many used this to proof that homosexuality is a sin but it is not the same fact but alien

    http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm

    What of sciences

    http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm

    http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html

  43. Gary says:

    Moanti,

    Thanks for your response about Leviticus 18:22.

    I have another perspective on that translation:

    If you look at Leviticus 20:13, the admonition is the same, “If a man lie with a man as with a woman…” the Hebrew is:

    w’iysh ásher yish’Kav et-zäkhär mish’K’vëy iSHäh
    if man that lie down with man bed woman

    you would think that Leviticus 18:22 would be worded similarly, with the two words for man or male used to insure that the point it made.

    Also, let’s look at the words in Levicitus 18 20:

    w’el- ëshet ámiyt’khä lo- tiTën sh’khäv’T’khä l’zära l’†äm’äh- vä H

    Moreover wife (woman) neighbor not deliver (give) copulate seed defile with

    thou shall not lie carnally with thy neighbors wife, to defile thyself with her

    Also Leviticus 18:23:

    ûv’ khäl-B’hëmäh lo- tiTën sh’khäv’T’khä l’†äm’äh-

    with any beast not deliver copulate defile with

    You would also think that 18:22 would contain some of the sexual implication words that are in those verses such as tiTën (deliver or give) or sh’khäv’T’khä (copulate or intercourse) and l’zära (seed)

    But it does not.

    I think it further supports the position that Leviticus 18:22 is really talking about a man (or men) lying in the bed of a woman. Were there specific beds during idol worship? One set of beds for men and another for women, representing the Goddess?

    This may seem a bit picky, but there seems to have been a very creative (and somewhat inaccurate) mind involved in the initial translation from Hebrew. In order to really understand the Bible, it seems to me that someone would have to know Hebrew or Koine Greek before commenting on the meaning of passages.

    I look forward to your opinion on my amateur sleuthing.

    • Hi Gary,
      Sorry for the long delay in response! Thank you for your fascinating insights. I do agree that it’s strange that the word for seed or copulation is not used… Most of all, the verses do seem to have been translated outside of their original wording. Here is the word-for-word English translation via the Hebrew Bible set into Google Translate (note that I don’t use google translate for my primary research, but thought I’d give it a try out of curiosity):
      Lev 18:22
      “And shalt not lie my bed a woman is an abomination.”
      Lev 20:13
      “And the man that lay with the woman remembered my bed abomination both of them shall be put to death.”

      It really doesn’t seem like a male is even laying with any male in this literal google translate translation… It seems more like a male laying with a female in this, but the crime of such things is still in question, unless shakab (to lie) is rape or coerced sex. It’s quite strange.

      But aside from this, if it is in fact speaking to a male with male, we know that Leviticus 18:21 that comes before 18:22 speaks directly to sacrificing the zera (seed/semen) to the idol Molech. Before this, a long list of incestuous practices are condemned that have nothing to do with idol worship. The sudden shift in topic seems significant. After speaking about sacrificing the seed to the idol, three things are mentioned that are known associations to idol worship in Canaan; males engaging in non-procreative actions to sacrifice their seed, males engaging in non-procreative actions with animals, and females receiving the male seed of animals. These were all non-procreative ways that the Canaanite idol worshipers were know to be engaged. So categorically, it seems they are associating 18:22 with idol worship.

      Aside from this is something that I noticed recently in my research. In looking at the 613 laws in the Old Testament, I noticed that each are quite clear on their gender categorically. This is especially true sexually. The reason this is significant is because of the lack of prohibition against lesbianism. To the laymen reader, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 would also apply to females with females, but no such command is given. If Moses was speaking to a prohibition against all of homosexuality, we would expect lesbians to also be a target. Secondly, lesbianism was NOT a known practice in idol worship ceremonies, as it all had to do with sacrificing the male seed (of humans and animals.) So this could give further evidence that the Old Testament prohibition of male/male sex (if it is even talking about that) is only due to the Jews trying to physically separate themselves from the other pagan religions. Let me explain how this goes further than just an assumption…

      When we see a command against a specific area of incest, we can surely categorically apply it to both sexes. If a father is not allowed to engage in sex with his daughter-in-law, we can know without it being written that a daughter-in-law is not allowed to have sex with her father-in-law because it’s the same thing. But the Torah only mentions a male in this instance of Leviticus 18:22, and does not provide a command against a female lying with a female. The reason I attest that this can not be assumed as automatically part of the law is because of the verse that follows Leviticus 18:22. In Leviticus 18:23, it states “And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.” Notice that the first command against bestiality is writing to the reader who is expected to be male. Then it commands a second time to refer to a female. This is quite interesting in that for bestiality, it does not give a general command, but separates that both the male reader and the female should not lie with a beast. We would expect that if all of homosexuality was part of this prohibition, than we would see a verse similar to this: “neither should a woman lie with a female as with a male.” Because this separation was not given, it gives much more evidence that this command was specific to males due to the Canaanites performing non-procreative sex in their idol worship rituals which “defiled the land before them.”

      As a reminder to the New Testament reader, we can see this same idolatrous connection contextually in Romans 1, as “even their women exchanged their natural function (marital sex) for that which is unnatural (anal sex for idol worship).” Then we see that LIKEWISE the men did the same thing (remembering that lust was present and not the love of a committed union.) Note again that there is no true indication of lesbianism, as it says nothing about the female being with a female, but rather just an exchange of natural for unnatural sexual practice. We can only know what it is truly speaking about when looking at the full context of Romans 1, which clearly states word for word of these Romans exchanging God for idols and being depraved into these idol worship practices. No modern gay or lesbian is gay or lesbian because of idol worship, so this can not be the targeted topic or audience. Note also that Paul does not provide an explicit command against any of these acts, but simply states them as historically taking place. Once we move into Romans chapter 2, we see that his message is to stop people from judging one another because all are guilty of sin.

      So if male homosexual practice was forbidden in Leviticus 18:22 only due to the fact that it was associated with the idolaters who were in the land before them, then it would seem that this command could not fit in a general sense for all modern gays, as we are not under the law of Moses. Unless one wants to rely on the vague interpretations of the words arsenokoites and malakos as meaning “homosexuals” instead of “male prostitutes” (for arsenokoites) and possibly keepers of child sex slaves (for malakos), then we still don’t see anything against all of homosexuality (both male and female “participants.”)

      On that note, the word that means “male, beds” (arsenokoites) still only mentions a male, so where is the female in all of this? I am not claiming that modern male homosexuality is condemned and female homosexuality is okay. But what I am questioning is why the Bible would not make this clear if it was truly speaking to all homosexuals (both male and female.) We would expect that if arsenokoites (actual translation “male, beds”) really did mean “male having sex with a male,” then another word might be present [which I have coined] “thélusokoites” (actual translation “female, beds”) which would then perhaps suggest a female having sex with a female. But no such word is present… Due to this, one should question if homosexuality is truly the target here or if it is just pertaining to the male shrine prostitution that was so entrenched in the culture. If we do want to give this a modern application, “male-beds” can obviously be seen as a man in many beds, thus we can apply this to a condemnation of promiscuity.

      Lastly, I did not find anything as far as a specific separate “bed” for men or women in idol worship practice, yet I am still searching for more of this in my research and will let you know if I come up with anything. I hope these insights help. Let me know what you think. 🙂
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      • Gary says:

        Hi Moanti,

        I’m now the one apologizing for taking so long to respond, but I was away on vacation for most of July. I was happy to read your response. Much to go over.

        Your Greek Google translation for Leviticus is very clever of you and really quite interesting. Who would have guessed that wording would have come out as the translation. A further confirmation of what we suspect could be a possible reading.

        You mention that before 18:22 is a long list of incestuous practices that have nothing to do with idol worship. I’m not so sure of that. Let me give you my thoughts. I think that during the time of worship of Baal or Asherah, the townsfolk would gather to a clearing they preparred to perform the rituals. I can imagine them all disrobing, and chanting and start to engage in sexual relations. “They practiced “sympathetic magic”, that is, they believed they could influence the gods’ actions by performing the behavior they wished the gods to demonstrate. Believing the sexual union of Baal and Asherah produced fertility, their worshipers engaged in sex to cause the gods to join together, ensuring good harvests. If there was no priestess, female members of the community would play that role and likewise for the men.” I quoted that from Fertility Cults of Caanan: http://www.followtherabbi.com/guide/detail/fertility-cults-of-canaan.

        So it would seem to me that the verses before 18:22 could be a warning against what would happen when all the townsfolk got naked. Male and female, children, wives, husbands, neighbors, etc. The writers of Leviticus were very detailed and covered all the bases as they usually did in their verses.What do you think?

        I think your female perspective on thelusokoites is quite a clever invention to make us wonder why that was not mentioned after arsenokoites. My own opinion on that word arsenokoites is more to the meaning of John the Faster, what John Boswell believed referred to anal sex. And in that case, both men and women could engage in that.

        I have thought about your final paragraph of separate worship areas. I suspect that there were separate worship areas for men and woman. The Bible talks of Asherim areas for the worship of the goddess Asherah that were clearings under tress. The worship of the male god Baal was done in the “high places.” So this may give you a clue as to what would have been two segregated areas for worship.

        Gary

  44. ALL PLEASE READ: As a general rule of thumb for all that are contributing to comments on this site, I ask that you do not personally attack the Christian Faith of any particular commenter. All are welcome to express their beliefs and convictions, but as a mediator, I respectfully ask that no one continue to personally attack the Walk of Christ of anyone. This is a dangerous act, as it is not for humans to judge the true faith of others, but of God. Let God be the judge of each believer and know that we each have our different parts to play in the body of Christ. It is an unwise thing to say “you can’t be a Christian if “_______” unless the blank is filled by “you don’t accept Jesus as your Savior.” Inserting other things into the blank is an insult to the saving Grace of the blood of Christ that was shed for you.

    Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One person believes he may eat anything, while the person with a sensitive conscience eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as holier than another, while another esteems all days alike. [Personal note for contemplation: Some true believers do not follow Commandment 4 of the 10 commandments to remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy, yet still are accepted by God?] Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. (Words of Paul the Apostle as inspired by the Holy Spirit, Romans 14: 1-14)

    Thank you all for your lively contributions and I look forward to reading your words and will respond as time permits (For some, I am sorry I have yet to respond, as I have personal and career obligations that I must fulfill, but will get to you each as soon as possible.) I truly pray for you all and believe you were sent here by the will of God, for whatever reason, to work together all things good. My love extends greatly to all of you! Thank you again and may Yahweh bless you in unexpected and magnificent ways!
    Your sister in Christ,
    Moanti

    • Angela says:

      Technically the reason for not keeping the sabbth is because we are Gentiles also the mosaic law was made with Isarel. Many who are seven day sabbath are breaking the law many use electric on their homes and travel. Your are suppose to travel or use power.

    • Xavier says:

      Hi, Moanti. You are right with that general rule, I, too, am so dependant of my thin faith..

      Yet, we have the responsability to judge other believers within our own communities. Yet, we are corrected and disciplined, gently as we can but firmly, for our own good. Just like God’s Laws are here to secure our best interest as human beings and potentially become and live as genuine God’s Children, as our Creator knows better, being our Maker.

      I can well see the reason of your alst post directed at me, because of my last comment,..It worked somehow as I felt a bit guilty of my words, but not enough to feel wrong. Thinking hard, I did not sin to say so. I did not judge as a hyprocrite, condemning one another for what I do myself. I do not feel the need to apologize for my words to said person having a wrong Christian faith. there is ONE GOD, there is ONE LORD, ONe CHRIST, ONE TRUTH, ONE SPIRIT. ONE FAITH.. NIOT as many as we are individuals. that is relativism the opposite of our absolute God, which does not change, one and the same from every viewpoint.at every age of the history..The Ten Commandments are the Holy Law, God’s Moral Character and the Divine standard, the mirror to judge ourselves about our sins, ten commandments summarized in Christ’s command, “to love God, then to love others as yourselves”.

      The King David is said to be “a man after God’s heart”. The LORD is calling Himself “son of David,” several times.. for these reasons, .I am not going to allow, not even tolerate as I witness it difamacy over the Kind David and his freindship with Jonathan, associated with a homosexual relationship and a hint of gay marriage . It is sickening to push such claim, unlike a mere differing opinion on what food is clean adn what food is unclean as you say. It is not about food but deadly serious sins punished by death for the partakers duringthe Theocracy of Israel, and the Ancient covenant time. Vital questions on human sexuality and human relationships.

      It upset me as a total lack of integrity and reverence to Scriptures, to God. to manipaulte them to satisfy one’s own views and appetites, cheating guilt and their own conscience, deceiving others in the process if they can, sometimes. This is a proper event for me, actually, to run away from your blog and community I obvisouly do not belong to, The law of Christ is to help each other carry our burdens so they are not too heavy in the journey of living, but one has to carry their own cross either way. every day. We are called to holiness, homosexuals or heterosexuals or whatever self identifying label we stick ourselves. A person with a tendency to lie is not a liar anymroe shoudl theys top. Same for drink, same for homosexual practice. We are free beings with FREE WILL, self-determination, granetd blank page by God on our thoughts, beliefs, acts this is what I,say by that. all acountable to not follow god’s instructions recorded in Scripures, if we are believers.

      I have troubles to handle dreadful consequences of the sin of another man, shocking me to death by attempting to force me to homosexual sex, fellation. That dishonored me, obsesses me and is haunting me, I cry for JUSTICE, It made me an an enemy to that practice. and I am not wrong in that, not commiting a sin in opposing it, on the conttrary GOD is its enemy as well ,judging by scriptures in all objectivity, or are we tod ebate the purpsoe and design of oru private parts to prove the “comaptivility” of genders.. To practice homosexuality is a sin, a transgression of God’s LAW for sex within Marriage, nothing elss, nothing more. for it taking place outside his Biblical Mariage, plan and order for our human libes, sexuality, relationships. Period

      I am deeply sorry for my bible thumping but it proves encessary when the evry fudnatiuons , the WORD OF GOD is attacked by interpetations under the guise of progressive revisionism. It is unacceptable, just like teaching chidlren it is okay to be gay in oublic schools. Today’s psychological “finding”s on orientationit is so entengled in some persons identity they are enslaved to it, we are men and women, that is all. I am not enemy of homosexuals, I respect sub-identities a person give themsleves but I do not approve of them in any way. I consider myself a Christian man, not a straight or anything. I make efforts to not cause undue harm, and pray for any suffering person to come to Christ, that is the best I can do. We can(t save oruselves, God does. But not without repentance, and obedience after coming to God, or it proved useless and we were not fit to be His People.

      Tjhank you, Moanti to have published my comments on your blog, and I pray for all of you, please rest assured I have no ill will for any of you, truely.

      My only warning is, this, do not be deceived. Self deception and illusions of the ego, the pride of life, the lust of the flesh and the eyes is what makes you see homosexuality as legitimate, devoting yourselves so hard at confining Scripttures condemning its practice to very specific social and historical conext, conditions and situations, but never your own, of course.. While on the other hand expanding others excerpts as “blueprints” and ‘hints” for “gay marriages”.while there is not a single positive line in Scriptures in that regard. It is intellectual dishonesty. I am blunt but I am right in this judgment, and that is a judgment of love, because I speak truth as it is, not my bised opinion. The Truth of the Gospel of Jeesus Christ which ALONE as the power to set free. I suffer with you, as I understand you people are slaves to sin, to act in such a way.of covering your eyes and your ears, your hearts, feeling left out by scriptures and God.. But that is just a wrong impression, you are not alone..!! not speical sinenrs hell bound, not discriminately anyway as the same is said for all who rebel against God’s Will, but simple men and women strugglling with sinful temtpations, like each and every other human being on Earth, that is the truth setting you free.

      I am no expert, don’t know any original language of the Bible, but I can tell, for just one exemple, pro-gay claims that Leviticus only speak about cultic pratices of the Cannanean are wrong and a far stretch. Of all things, HOW homosexual acts are celebrating fertility rites.. OF ALL SEXUAL ACTS.. Two sentences after the prohibition of same gender sexual intimacy it is written, “these nations were driven out of the land because they did such detestable things.. ” therefore you can’t confine the cultic pratices to Canaan anymore, with the whole context.. etc.. etc.. But no point to debate, one will do as they decide to do, as always. ANYWAY…Or obey god and be saved, ding what God says is right, that is, a spirit of joy, peace, help, enduring with others..

      I apologize for the tone of my words, because I feel hurt, and upset the fundations of what seems to be our common faith are not reliable to seemingly many of you still, not good enough for you gay people or perhaps my bias and unfair generalisation.. but one things for sur,e youc an’t pratcie homsoexuality and not repent as true Chrsitian. Total acceptance of homosexuality is not going to happen in the Church, not without bloodshed, not without Muslims Sharia threat and support to other Monothesitic religion, as much as I dislike Islam. if civils wars happen, the few quiet and “cool” gays will pay the price for their hungry lobbies. . Our GOD is a loving, merciful, but also a HOLY God, with the POWER and autthority to save and to destroy according to His Word, Will, and Ways taught to us in Scriptures fairly enough.

      Fear God, receive God’s Word as a gift for the SPirit to come in the name of Jesus Christ. The moment you argue with God, you are at high risk of stopping to trust and obey. Learn we are just a breath away, so vulnerable beings, humble yourselves before God, and He will save you.. Tears are the key, cry for your sins.. Amen.

      Peace, and I am sorry, that I am a harsh person about moral laws, but I do trust to be right in that. not a hypocrite to do what I condemn in others, not self indulgent about my own sins, not taking pleasure in hurting others, I simply love truth alone and defend its inteegrity with violence, soemthing I must manage and handle to kindly and firmly disagree and disapprove what should not be said and done, that is my current goal.

      Farewell and please know I sincerely pray for you people, I think it will be my last comment and contribution to your blog Moanti , seeing I have developed in the last few days a hatred for “gay christians” self-justiffying claims by all means at their disposal, and propaganda to their lifestyle even in manipulating Scriptures..

      Yet, I can’tr explain, I trust you are not like “them”.. and such I am still open to discuss privately together, if you so wish..?

      Bless you, forgive me my harsh words toward your community, in my tone, but I do not repent in that any and every word I said, I tmeant it, I have the guts and the integrity to stand for my doing and beliefs too, as a man, as you do for yours, but it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong only what is right and what is wrong, and that, only God told us failry and clearly enough, without the screen and human pride of one’s ego in the way..

      Take care in all your ways, surrender to the Lord, our God,
      Xavier.

      • Dear Xavier,
        I am changing the beginning of this message, as I just received the last comment you posted. The general “rule of thumb” comment was NOT directed to you personally, as there have been several incidences in the past few days of commenters attacking other commenters. So this had to be said as not to make people feel unwelcome to express there views. Secondly, I do not agree with every word posted here on the comments section. I can speak privately with you on these matters… Third, there are ways to read the original Scriptures that are not “twisting” or “manipulating,” but looking at actual clear cut meaning. This goes beyond culture practice, but actual definitive linguistics. When the Bible is viewed by pure definition of it’s original language, it should not be considered manipulation. But these matters you do not wish to study, so I can only leave this up to you. I take the Word of God very seriously. I will for sure email you in the coming days. We really don’t have to debate anything, but rest assured, I have a strong faith in the ONE TRUE GOD and am here for you…

        So now onto my original message. You don’t have to respond publicly. It’s just a few things to think about:

        I have almost fully completed the editing process of your past comments. It was only difficult due to lack of time and trying to edit on this new WordPress App, but I finally figured it out! 🙂 I have just a few more to edit for you so your words are without error. This somehow makes me think of Jesus and His redemptive power within us. He is like the corrector of the mistakes we make, so when the time comes, a perfect work is seen before God. This is of course a simplified analogy, and I certainly am not comparing myself to Jesus for correcting your typos! :O This thought just came to me now and makes me even more grateful of His redemption! So I truly don’t want to cause any argument among us, or cause you any frustration dear Xavier, but it should be noted that your demand for “yes” and “no” and saying that Jesus claims anything more is from the Devil is most certainly out of context. If this were the case, then all words of description or explanation on all topics are off limits to Christians. I only correct you in this fact to help you grow in knowledge and not misuse Scripture. I am sure you said this unaware, and so I do not blame you. Please forgive me in advance for explaining this. Here is the verse from which you quoted:

        33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to our ancestors, You must not break your oath, but you must keep your oaths to the Lord. 34 But I tell you, don’t take an oath at all: either by heaven, because it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, because it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither should you swear by your head, because you cannot make a single hair white or black. 37 But let your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes,’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no.’Anything more than this is from the evil one.”

        So as you see, Jesus is referring to not making an oath, or swearing by something. When people say “I swear to God I will do….,” or “May I be struck down dead if I don’t do…” or “I promise on my mothers grave that I will…” These oaths are from the devil and used to convince someone. Perhaps the worst is the American practice of being forced to make an oath with ones hand on the Holy Bible and the other hand on their own heart that they are telling the truth, when we know that much deception and false memory is involved in court testimonies! So instead, one should not make an oath or swear by something, but rather give a truthful “yes” or “no.” So I don’t believe this can be applied to our conversations to silence me of explanation. Furthermore, many things in life cannot be answered by a simple “yes” or “no,” but sometimes “it depends,” or “yes and no depending” or “I don’t know.” So before I answer your question, I ask you to please answer this with a simple “yes” or “no” with no explanation or condition whatsoever:
        Question: Is the practice of HETEROsexuality a sin?

        I only ask this because I can imagine that this can’t be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” I feel equally as frustrated with your question, because there are many facets to the answer. You may be surprised by my answer, so please don’t assume you’ve guessed it already…

        It should be explored once more of the idea of involuntary sin. As you say, no sin is involuntary, but requires action. Yet The Bible says if one hates his brother, he is a murderer. (Reference 1 John 3:15) Likewise, Matthew 5:28 states, “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Here we see that sin comes from within the man, not just his actions: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23). So I know that you can at least understand that attraction and falling in love is involuntary… So with this said, how can homosexual attraction and romantic love which are involuntary, be non-sinful if homosexual sex in ALL contexts are really condemned in Scripture, when we see that even the thought of sin is sin? Your conscience as well as the conscience of most Christians can accept that being gay and having involuntary attractions is not the sin, but to “act upon it” sexually is the sin. But in light of these passages, it would seem that homosexuality would not be exempted, so it would represent the only involuntary sin worthy of judgment? You compare homosexuality to idolatry, as you say one has to “choose a community” or basically “pick a side.” Somehow homosexuality to you seems to be set as a liberal way of thinking or a belief system, when it is no more a choice than your inherent heterosexuality. I remember having my first “crush” on a girl at age 5, and never “nurtured” any feelings to have these come about, but rather tried to suppress them and cried out to God for deliverance for most of my life until I came to peace. So am I inherently created as an idolater? Would you then recommend I reject God by “choosing” the homosexual community? This is all foreign thinking to me. I love The Lord God with all my heart soul and mind and fully accept Yeshua as my Savior and King… So do you say then, I am rejected by Him? I encourage you to stop polarizing any sin, struggle or uncommon feeling as a void to Salvation.

        I believe that God sent you here to me for a reason, and I hope we can move forward from here as Believers and not quarrel over these matters. I only want to help you through your trauma and I am here to listen and pray for you. I really do care for you Xavier, so I hope this exchange does not get cut short because of these differences or anyone else’s opinions. I will write to your email in the coming days… I’m sorry it took me so long to respond. I have quite a busy week and it’s already late here, but please know I am praying for you daily and take time in my responses and prayerfully write them with care.
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

  45. Xavier says:

    Hi, Moanti,

    Thank you for your editing work, I appreciate and am really an obsessive person about my own mistakes.. 🙂

    I distrust for us to discuss publicly now, as you poiinted it raised an argument and hatred in my heart, I must then withdraw totally, throw away what cause to stumble.

    To simply answer your question, yes or no “is heterosexuality a sin”, The only answer is ,np

    Granted, explnation has to be provided, but homo and heteroseuxal acitvity cannot be compared, my dear as we are obligated, as reproductive beings of hetrosexual mating, that is how we are designed by God, as our bi-gendered human nature.

    Yet, to practice homosexuality and not repent of it is worthy of death, as far as I know and God judged, I trust and approve that, yet we live under the time of Grace, the limit is at one’s last hour, as I said.. I believe many homosexuals couldr epent in their old age, perhaps.. I so wish, I am a sensible and compassionate man that have been harmed and bruised, you know, that is how I truely beg for forgiveness on my late words and tone; yet have zero tolerance to compromise serious issues. such as these I have dealt with.. I am hurt just to listen people call homosexuality a perversion out of respect and care for people, I am such a softy. . 😦

    Just one last tuing, my fristration is about.. Words.. I.. hate.. Words.. I.. Love.. Simplicity,.. Clarity… And I now feel like a robot, lol.. 🙂

    Have a good day, and it is my alst comment publicly, I look forward to our further exchanges through emails, hopefully as I, too trust as a sicnere eprson and Chritian and value you, it is indeed, out of explanation..

  46. Xavier says:

    Oh hell, more things I forgot to write before I close my public comment contribution once for all in your blog.. As I have told you, I am usually editing my posts countless times as I can, and never satisfied with it.. lol

    Just to share with you my true understanding.. What is “normal” and what is not.. I know you are not responsible, that we are not responsible for temptations and feelings coming to us.. But we are, as we grow adults, in power and 100% accountable about EVERYTHING concerning ourselves.. Especially our sexual behaviors. God gives us that power every day.. Our existence lies in our own hands,

    It is unfortunate perhaps 5% of the pouplaition, being generous in numbers seems to develop deep seated homosexual tendencies, some from early chidlhood, but that is just one possibility, as, look at me, I am dealing with such questioning heavily and without mercy because of my self esteem destroyed next to my failure with my ex girlfriend, the price I paid for not waiting for Marriage perhaps, as I loved her so much and that old trauma resurfacing out of an unrelated event of feeling captive again ..

    My position, my firm position, is to tell you, to tell us, to tell them, you grow up and you see you ar different, that there is a disorder within your affectivty comapred to the majority.. You do have the CHOICE, the POWER to either work with God, or embrace that liferstyle..

    Scriptures are here, and I don’t belive today’s gays are different in anyw ay from our ancestoirs of any age of hsitory.. But medias, oevr poupaltion, apostasy, are adding to the issue.. enslaving you, and others in their feeling.. I am sorry but this is my faith and unchangeable perception of “the homsoexual orientation” whcih is not transgressive by tiself, but undoubtedly is by acting upon the desires, the lusts.. As much men and women are obviously meant for each other in terms of conjugal love, so men and women are obvisouly meant to brotherly and sisterly love..

    This is the reason of my pain and suffering, ‘the curse of brotheerhood” is the name I name homsoexuality, because of this very reason, that one man harming me, violating my masculine integrity and ruining my brothely love and trust in same gendered persons, introducing fear of abuse and hate, defiance, oh, my god save me from those…. While on true homosexuals, that is in the other way, I belive, as much danegrous and inappropirate, a “perversion” in the sense a deviation, of “normal” conjugal feelings whcih are codnemnable for health reasons and human growth as mroal beings. Sorry to say.. ..

    I sign and seal this as my final testimony on the subject, and stand on it. We have purposes as men and women, by God’s design, and same gender sexual intimacy is not one of them..

    Bless you, Moanti, and any person, people, gay people, I trust if just one of my readers is a true Christian, the same spirit we share will keep my words as true and edifying , serving the Living God, as boasting and arrogant it may sound, and read.. God knows better…

    Peace, my last public comment as all is said and done on my part now;
    Xavier.

    • Xavier,
      This will be my last public response to you, and it’s now 3:30AM the morning! 😛 I will email you in the next few days. Don’t worry, you have certainly made your points clear on here. You have been sexually forced into acts which have caused a massive cancer of anger in your heart towards homosexuals and justify it by the verses in the Bible which you have read in translated English/French. Your hatred grows stronger by imaging that anyone practicing homosexuality could ever be accepted into Salvation. This is because you are connecting homosexuality with your abuse. You hate yourself for ever feeling vulnerable and confuse your incidences of being sexually violated with imagining that you could be homosexual, which could be nothing further from the truth. You are heterosexual, Xavier. You are not gay at all. You were put into an assault situation. Now God is loving, and does command us to love God and others. Edifying words build up, not tear down. Your humanity was degraded by the incidences that you went through. This is due to an act of rape and coerced sexual abuse which is clearly condemned in Scripture in the alternate translation, NOT in the traditional translation (sorry but it had to be said.) So in the alternate translation of Scripture, your abusers are worthy of death…. But instead, you accept that I should die along with them too. But somehow you see something different in me. Is this not God working on your heart to bring about something greater?

      The harm this incident has caused you is severe. The hatred in your heart is tearing you apart. You gain a false sense of control and power to publicly rip our humanity apart. I would be lying if I didn’t say that it hurts, yet I forgive you despite your publicly proclaimed lack of repentance for doing so, as you truly feel you are doing the right thing and don’t see how the pain of this can make potential believers run and scream away from God permanently. So my job here is NOT to change your views on wether homosexuality is a sin or not a sin, but instead to help you not let hate and anger and fear rule your life or your Christian witness to others. Instead, the Ruler of All, who provides love and peace and joy will immerse your heart and thoughts upon every waking day. “Perfect love casts out fear.” So a greater love is in order which can only be offered by His perfected love. I don’t blame you for your issues, Xavier. God has given me love for you to help you. Somehow, someway, He will prevail in this and renew your heart. So I will write you in a few days through email and hope that we can keep any differences we have out of this, but only focus upon your healing and be of support. Okay?
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

  47. Xavier says:

    Hi, Moanti, just a quick reaction, transgressing my last comment claim, ahh..

    You are almost correct in your understanding of my current situation, but that cancer of anger did not develop toward homosexuals in particular, not at all. but against my whole masculine gender in general, myself included.. Now, it was my first baby steps to you, in a “gay” community and I qick regretted it, and chose to withdraw because of what I perveived, with reason, as blatant “pro-gay” Scriptures manipulations and misinterpretation.favorable to you folks lifestyle , which offedned and angered me.as we are warned, we are not permitted to determine right and wrong, God does and our part is to trust and obey to live as His Chidlren, or cast away God and His “rules” to live on our own, to well deserved death.

    Frankly, I do not believe in a “fixed” sexual orientation, I do not have encountered a person of “homosexual orientation” yet to my knowlegde. It wouldn’t chang a thing anyway,as to me as to God we are men and women, that is all I keep as true and modern psychologists, more often than not atheists, can keep their “human wisdom” to themselves.

    Have a good night, Moanti. Talk to you soon, take care and be assured I have so many flaws but not that of lying and pretending.

    God save us!!,
    Xavier.

  48. Xavier says:

    Oh my, one last comment, last comment.. lol..

    Really, Moanti, your, and my problems are caused by WORDS..

    I realized long before already, the cause of my pain and, in response to that pain, of my wrath in these few “social justice” debates I had with confessing heterosexual unbelievers (atheists) was because of words, of LABELS…

    You see, the reason of my violent argument on that place was mainly about the word “homophobe”, conveniently made up by the “pro gay crowd”, to encompass BOTH the fair reject of homosexual acts and the keeping away of any and all “gay culture” out of the privacy of one’s own life, environment and family, WITH ALSO the unfair reject of homosexual persons just because of their sexual orientation, their homosexual preference, a most private information standing on a person’s own discretion alone ACTUALLY and therefore incapable of warranting any discrimination “at sight”, unlike skin color or gender identity directly visible by the looks. My argument with these “socal justice warriors” was about their dishonesty of conveniently equating “homophobia” with rmy stand against the ACTS, as well as ther forced comparison of “homophobia” with my supposed racism and misogyny, to nail my coffin the most likely denial of my own homsoexulity fo being such a “ravenous homohobe”.. ..

    ALL this happening by calling me out after a few posts heating up in that direction, ignoring my apologizes and nuancing between acts and eprsons, my similar request to withdraw for health reasons. Such a fallacy and manipulation enraged me to no ends for weeks longs.. To this day I still hold the two persons drawing me in this accountable as I do not forgive easily, if not getting excuses and reasons.

    On the other side, on your side, you are hurt because of the condemnation of homosexuality, a word likewise unfairly encompassing both a person’s homosexual orientation, and the pratice of homsoexual acts by either “sexual identity”. again convenienly fo the ‘pro gay crowd”.

    I am naive, and I think that you are too, if you belive homsoexual men in particular are all loviing and kind people. Tnot to enter in too crude detaiils, the male “g-spot” is the prostate, situated close to the anus, so you can understand the motive is very different most of the tiems to engage in acts of male to male sodomy. I guess the pleasure of the prostate being stimulated, and the pleasure to “dominate” another of the same gender. And I am not curious to know.

    The end rsult of these labels, HOW the person struggling to CHANGE their sexual behaviors, to resist their homosexual urges, in this conditions of words dividing us in sides as opponents iqs still possible..? Is it not the power of the DEVIL AT WORK HERE, as the world is at the hand of the enemy, we are being told fairly enough. The lobbies pushing too far they agenda when quiet, REAL homsoexual persons are paying the price of this, I am certain, just keeping their privacy well to themselves and being respectable people..

    My point stand as sound and good, we are men and women, the world is a bad place, only God is good, and will wash us as we sin, any time nexcessary, justc ry if you heppen to sin, dear sister, and brothers..My last comment, I hope so..lol.. So much to be said, but my sincere wihs not to be categorized as a hateful homophobe again..

    This time for good, farewell, thank you Moanti for your editing and your udnerstanding, and forgiveness on me, it was never about PERSONS, but ACTS, just like God stands for., only unrepenting people will perish according to their ways.. Amen.

    Xavier.

  49. Gary says:

    Xavier,

    First of all, I want to thank you for the kinds words you had for me over at Erik Brewer’s Blog.

    I have been reading your posts here on Moanti’s blog with great interest, and I need to make a few comments. My perspective on what you’ve said here is different than Moanti, since she’s a Lesbian and I am a gay man. I can relate to you. I have volunteered in the past for many years at various Gay and Lesbian Centers in California. I have talked to probably a hundred men on crisis lines who have had similar traumatic experiences to yours. The story goes something like this: a young man finds himself with sexual attractions to other men. It’s even before he is questioning his own sexual orientation. So he decides to go out one day and “test the waters,” in other words, act on his urges. He has an anonymous same-sex encounter which goes very wrong, and is left feeling dirty and ashamed and guilty for acting on those desires. In order to come to terms with what happened, in order to placate the guilt and shame, he redirects that guilt on others by trying to belittle those who are gay. And what better way to shame and judge and guilt others than to turn to the Bible which provides ample ammunition with verses loaded with “thou shalt not” and abominations and sin and condemnation. So, I don’t know if you have any similarities with this story of the young man, but what I can say to you is stop playing the victim and figure out who you are before you try to shame and condemn others.

    • Xavier says:

      Hello, Gary,

      Thank you for your comment, and you are welcome for my support in the truth, you mean the article I pointed to Erik to counter his belief we are born sinners, I find him also very harsh and wrong in calling people evil,.. I assume he is scared for his children to be that way.

      As I said a little above, I am so broken and an odd man but one thing, I am, to my honest knowledge and effort, not saying lies, or so, so few and without consequences…

      I read you, and I do not relate to the story and situation you have been facing and given during your volunteering (thank you for doing such BTW, this is the true religion) not in the slightest. That event happened to me around the years 2000’s, At the time, I had no computer,no Internet, I was not much of a TV watcher,either and no media talking about homosexuality at all. I was about 20 years old, and all I knew little about it, actually was from the reading of a book, from Ann Rice, author of “Interview with a Vampire” series, in the third volume, her Lestat having same- sex experience with one of his long time human friend. That was, I believe the first time I read and got aquainted with this reality of “what is homsoexuality” and it just left me a weird feeling of, “what is that, two men..? I don’t understand..” and in all honestly, I left it at that with no further interest but being clueless.

      I am going to take the leap and write this down. Open my heart. My soul. Tell my story.

      I am not a man with much curiosity in learning about what doesn’t make sense to me, I was very shy and reserved at the time, and that didn’t change, probably worsen.. There was little access to “porn” in these years, few TV channels, I was not looking for it much and was not using many porn magazines.. As II would buy and use some, the shame and guilt would always lead me to tearing the pages of the magazine apart and get rid of it inside a manhole, close to my home, a sewer thing, you know? Frankly and simply, I could not stand long using porn, feeling to steal something..to dirty, dishonoring women that I always been fond as “virgin maries” (my mother name is Marie-France,that can’t be a coincidence..) and tried to date real few girls I had a crush on, 21 from my early childhood called Alyzon, Ir ecall just pink color lol, and another for 2 years during my teenage, that I really wanted to love, and be loved, writing some sweet wordds but she had no interest in me.. At age of 20, I only had a few “flirts” for 1-2 weeks with 3 girls asking me to date. That was the context for my mentality and experience of life then.

      About that time, at the last Crhsitmas time I went out of some cannabis use an abuse which went during my 15′ to 20’s years, as it was getting me sick, and poor in money.. That fateful day of a late summer of the same if not a few years later, I was out to buy some normal tobacco to roll. I stopped smoking in 2010, thanks to my, now ex, girfriend, her little “joke threat” to not kiss together if I smell like an asthrey, worked for me, lol.. As I bought the tobacco, I got “tempted” at the paper shop, as I purchased a “softer”, “erotic”magazine, I thougth would not lead me to dirty thiking and masturbation, to the usual point of getting rid of the book like the few others “porn” ones, as I wrote above, in the sewer grid near my home.. it was a “playboy magazine”.style of book called New Look.. By the sunset I went to the public park nearby, smoke my new cigs and was looking that magazine, sitting under a tree.. Cool by msyelf.. That was the context and situation.

      A stranger, a 50ish arab man, approached me to that tree, in that park.. I was uneasy because of my erotic magazine, but I am a naive and stupid man. And still am.. I did not feel any sense of danger, or risk, as he sat next to me. I was thinking, “oh well, you can look too, okay”.. That went on for a few minutes, he only did one strange move, as he took one my hands and examined my fingers.. I did not understand that move and not curious by nature, left it at that. thinking “what the,.. how weird?.”, in the same way I felt, clueless from reading Ann Rice’s book homosexual experience portrayal, but I did not relate the two at the time, only right now. as I share it..

      That ma, as I paid no mind, I thought was looking the book, and would just ask me sometimes by the turn of pages and “playmates”, “how do you like her?” “so you like what you see..” … It was getting creepy, and I would just say yes, shy and uneasy more and more.. But still not endangered.. That was when he suddenly made the move, holding my wrist with a hand and the other on the top of my head..he firmly pushed my face to his pants. .. He did not have the sex out, he was anxiously looking around the park if there was anyone else, possible helpers for me, as I could lift my eyes to his face.. I understood right away, in a second what was happening to me.. I was getting sexually assaulted and that man wanted me to suck him. I struggled for a few seconds to get off his grip, and I ran for my life.. I never ran so fast..not looked back until home.. Shocked in terror, violated and still clueless.. That was it.

      I had buried that event, not thinking about it for more than ten years.. The consequences were underground.. My parents were too kind, letting me stay home, so I was not seeking to get a work or something as I please.. Me locking myself in my home, “safe”, not going out for so many years.. As I attempted to study English at university, about 2005, that was then it did manifest physically.. I have developed a chronic skin disease, a sort of urticaria / eczema, itchy areas on / around my nose, forehead, eyes, upper lip, chin.. It appeared under the pressure of heavy stress.. From red parts of skin at best to wet, yellowish / bloody ones, to plain crusts of dead skin.. That prevented me to simply attend the studies, the look from others was unbearable, I felt like a leper or a HIV person, locked myself in my tiny room for most of these two years.. One year for an English licence, my dream job was working in translation or eventually, foreign teaching abroad, then one year in psychology.. Failed exams, of course without lesson..

      I was thinking, it was just heavy stress, of unknown origin even by studies. but I now assume it was, it is a psycho somatic effect of my untreated trauma,. My body was reacting by itself.. I was feeling a weird, remote, unclear distress and shame facing the look, the judgment of “the others” but I really did not know exactly why at the time.. Consequently I was gradually and bascally skipping any class and locking myself in my tiny university room, feeling dirty.. As the disease worsened my face a mess, with these ugly, yellow crusts over my forehead, nose eyes..I was confining myself hidden and feeling there ike a hideous monster,

      In context of faith, I was always attracted to “God” and the promise of Eternal life, already by my childhood, the story of Jesus was strong and talking to me, I wanted to be like him, saving others, healing others.. But, I left it behind somehow around my teenage for these other stories of immortal vampires books instead.. I have used these two years locked in my university room, feeling like a tue leper with my skin hell, prayfully reading the Bible as I just lloved it and felt safe that way, playing my good old video games also., which I have an obsession to collect today, about 1500+ lol.. Luckily this only cost me perhaps 40$ a month!

      I was simply lost, and not understanding the cause of my skin disease in these two years.. I attempted licences degrees one year in English, as I have a natural flow with it since my childhood, for my “dream job” at the time of translating or teaching it. then one in Pyschology to help me maybe get the “why am I feeling so different from others and marginalized, now” …

      Now, I may be wrong but I think not, I assumle, I understand these heavy skins problems preventing me to study were because of my shame and guilt of being sexually assaulted by another man.. I took the blame. it was all my fault.

      I will skip that part, as it iis not relevant here; but I have met online a Thailand lady around my 30’s that I really loved.. We “dated” for two months online, and I went to meet her for 2 months.. I still love her as she was my “first time”, and the first woman I wanted to love, that “accepted” me, my love, but not really as she did not love me.. She would pretend but not be true, just sweet words and promises.. Truely she only wanted to be taken care of, to marry a rich “farang”, foreigner, who would be her husband, me or another was not important.. I knew that “trend” and understand it, Thailand has so much sexual tourism going on and foreigners abuses of that, It is a poor country and very different culture, many thailand ladies “dreamed life”….I was different not only in words, my motives was to lover her, and her love, I did all I could to express and prove it, but she was not interested in me,in doing her part in building our relationship.. She did not trust in me, my feelings at all.. She mistreated me, us.. she ended scamming me money, using affective threats and left me behind, as if I never existed in her life, blocking me on the computer in my return to France.. Hell for about 3 to 4 months, with insane phone bills trying to reach her and understand what I did wrong for this.. I gave up as she laughed of me, being a “lazy man”. That was it.

      As I wrote on Erik’s page my trauma resurfaced at a time my self esteem was so broken by the failure of “my first love”.. but I had still no “homosexuality” in mind, at all..It was because of my brother holding my wrist during a little drink on a weekend, just to yell me soemthing to the ears lol as he was drunk, lol.. That triggered it.. I felt again in the hands of the arab man and forced to something sexual I had no clue and no will at all about. As Moanti wrote, my body screamed no. The next day,as I woke up probably because of the alcohol, my brain had a “dysfunction”.. That day, that sunday, I was in a state of panic for hours and hours.. I could not get out of it.. I felt my vody would not let me ease, woudl push me away.. I thought it was my time to die, a totally irrational terror of sudden death had overcome me for hours.. I was walking around my home, praying why, what happen, what is wrong with me…

      I assume it was a “panic” thing in our brain, because I was scared to be abused..

      I risk to live that panic attack, as I leave my house to unknown locations and destinations, but most of all, in a car moving and being locked in place triggers it, and even simple Tv watching.. I must feel totally secure and in “control” of my movements and environment, I assume, as something in my brain i not okay.. I have a dreadful, irrational, terrorizing fear taking over, of being “taken” somewhere I do not know, It escalate in total hystery and anxiety, irrationnaly and I feel again like dying, being separated from my body.. I have experienced it again, just yesterday.. As I tried to go out with my family, my mother driving, with my brother, to a dinner for his Birthday, 37 years, I have failed to go far from home.. I could not calm and prayd the Lord to save me, crazy.. I felt like dying, leaving the “safe zone” of our home.. My mom had to drive me home, it was too much stress.. I am very sick and must treat this, it is getting critical..

      Homosexuality was never a part of my life, and it never had any room in it, beside this move of that one man on me taking power lately, because of my post traumatic stress, and fueling my wrath.. I don’t recall any standing homosexual fantasy worth mentioning, by honest memory check. I am still as clueless about it today as before, and PLEASE do not get personally offended by what I am about to say, I am not willing to learn about it either… I only know its practice is a sin against God’s Will for our sexuality and human relationships, a testimony from Scriptures, from the Church traditional teachings, and from my own living experience of it. It is my convictiona dn I appprove of all these three sources, please don’t take it as an offense, too. .Simply, I have been harmed by a move of that sort. and I want justice. I want to turn back time and beat that arab man to a pulp. I have developed a disgust, a hatred of both Islam negating Christ’s sacrifice and promoting “the man” gender and a violent hostility, a defiance toward my own gender peers, regardless of who they are. On the other side, I find confort in the simple idea of existence of women, their kind care, their soft presence.. I need them. I feel safe and happy around them, but I risk affective abuse again, I am still so vulnerable and naive, seeing my ex girfriend scamming money off me, I guess I am borderline an idolater of women..

      “The curse of brotherhood”.. I have lost my brotherly feeling back then at my 20’s, as I had many friends before and it was just life,.I admired some, some admired me, we were friends, we grew together in friendship.. But that sexual assault did cut the bond, introducing distrust, doubts, fear and occasionaly terrible panic attacks, merciless identity crisis, …Now at my own home, toward my own real broither I am not “safe” for a few years now, against my will to overcome that misturst, because of his unfortunate wrist holding druing a drink.. irrational fears of sexual abuse striking in. haunting me.. I believe I am left obsessed with a spirit of vengeance, a tragic reaction of self defense..

      That is my honest testimony, Gary.. and Moanti.

      Sexually.. Sex of all kind is scaring me away.. I avoid any sexual thought, or porn.. The same ad before, I find all dirty and dishonoring.. I reject my body.for being a man… I want to be a spirit, a child of God, not risking to be abused physically in this life anymore.. That is all, my current trial and suffering..

      That, is my story, so far… As weird and crazy as it from an internet stranger to share that, as we are to each others, I thank you for the chance of breaking my wall of silence.. To speak it out.. To write it down. .It is the first time I care to elaborate and confess it in such an open, genuine way.. It is good to me for future reference, about where I am, who i am.

      I cry my heart out to you now, opened whole.. I plan to volunteer in humanitary work, too, Gary because I am losing my humanity so bad lately.. I want no more manipulating in this life.. End with human cheatings. Please do not get offended yet again, but truely i could not care less about homosexuality, to be honest. I am just very sick and suffering because of another man violating my gender identity.

      God save,
      Xavier.

      • Xavier,
        It is somehow again 3:30 in the morning, but wanted to write you briefly… I really am not usually up so late, but these past few nights I’ve been unusually awake. Thank you so very much for having the courage to share your story. This brought tears to my eyes and I have much compassion for you. I could feel the fear in your words. I am very empathic and could feel your anxiety and pain. I’m so sorry these things have happened to you Xavier. This incident clearly terrorized you and no one should ever judge you for this, as everyone can be affected by things at different levels. This just shows your sensitive heart. My prayers can be more specific now, that you are fully released from this trauma ruling your life. I also pray that opening up to bring these things hidden to light will be the start of healing. My prayers are with you.
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

  50. Xavier says:

    Bonjour, Moanti,

    No, it is me to thank you, for the opportunity in letting out, my “dirty little secret”,, corrupting me for so many years..

    Who would I be, if that didn’t happen.. Perhaps, working in English as I wanted..

    I will tell you something strange.. I am happy this event broke my ego.. I am happy because I learn to treat others with so much care and respect.. I want to believe, as I suffer and am so lost, God is with me as i cry for support.. And i can feel my heart bleeding and easing somehow.. Tht is why i told you in my messages, cry as you sin.. Our tears are the key, the path to his Heart.. As the grieving over our sins stop, even a little sin of letting our ego take over, we abandon God, our Holy God..

    Have a good night, and sleep more ohh.. 🙂

    Take care, God bless us all in our lives..
    Xavier.

  51. Top Gun says:

    Hi Moanti
    After that long reply to your last comment, I was meditating on one of the proverbs verses I used. “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged; and by the fear of the LORD, men depart from evil”.

    It then hit me that this sums up what the entire Gospel is. By the feared of the LORD because of his righteousness, men depart evil and turn to Him (i.e repentance). Now here’s what’s amazing about this verse. “By mercy…” I’ll come back to this, “..and TRUTH iniquity is purged”. What did Jesus say about truth? “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples; and you will know the truth and the truth WILL set you FREE.”

    Jesus isn’t saying anything new. He is saying that with the truth, iniquity WILL be purged, you will be free from sin, no longer slave of sin but of righteousness. I stand as with many others and faithfully testify that the truth does set us free. This all relates back to what I was saying about revelation regarding Romans 6,7 and 8. That sin no longer takes us captive, no longer has power, that we are a new creation in Christ, that we are baptised into Christ and raised up as one with Him, that we are called to renew our minds from carnal thinking and start saying that he who is in me is greater than he who is in the world. We are no longer sinners but saints living under the mercy of God. This is our new identity in Christ.

    Back to the part regarding mercy. What does this mean? I was searching the bible, (mainly the New Testament) and I then remembered verses that I used to use all the time to convince myself of the Grace and mercy of God. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Me being ignorant of the word I would proudly proclaim that I have sin/sinned and I’m a sinner. But if we look at the context of this, the previous verses say God is light, and if we say we have fellowship with Him but live in darkness (unrighteousness, sin, whatever names you can think of) we don’t have the truth. BUT if we come into the light and walk in the light, we have fellowship, AND the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. John then writes the above verse about deceiving ourselves, and then reinforces what we have in Jesus Christ. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleans us from all unrighteousness.”

    That last verse I used time and time again to convince myself that God’s grace is greater than His righteousness. It is not. They are both equal. God’s Word is alive Moanti! These verses are reinforced by the proverbs verse and vice versa.

    Now some may read this and think its a bit contradictory but Paul wrote in Romans that we are free FROM sin not OF sin. Paul even warns us not to get tangled up again with this bondage Gal 5:1. By walking in the truth and mercy of God sin is purged from our lives BUT (I can’t emphasise enough) we must have the fear of God rooted deep within our foundations because when the truth sheds light on our sins, we without hesitation must repent and confess to God.

    I’m thankful of those who have taught me about the righteousness and fear of God but most importantly greatful for God’s long-suffering and mercy upon me as He teaches me what it really means to fear the LORD. It’s up to us now with ears to hear to receive and seek forgiveness.
    This is the Gospel

    • Hello Top Gun,
      Sorry for the delay in reply. Thank you for your comprehensive comment on these passages. I must agree that God’s righteousness, holiness and grace is equal. I would also say that His love is just as equal, as without love, there could be no grace and vise versa. Truly all the attributes of God are dependent on one another in equal perfectness as mutually exclusive in His nature. Because God is all righteous, then righteousness must include love because God is love. Because God is love, perfect holiness must be perfect love, etc. I would also assert that we are all unholy and unrighteous by human nature, but it is by the grace and love of God that we become righteous and holy in the site of God by the blood sacrifice of His Son, as we receive the Holy Spirit within us. Following the commands are an expression of our love towards Him, not the means to Salvation.

      I just have a few questions, not arguments. What is your understanding of the Old and New Covenant? Not the Old and New Testament, but the Old and New Covenant? Also, when you use the word “fear,” in what context do you personally see it? Do you see it as being terrified (of judgment and wrath)? Or do you see it has having reverence and being in awe of the Divine perfect nature God? With that said, can you see different contexts of “fear” used in the Old and New Covenant? Sometimes a mix? Sometimes not? We are told “perfect love casts out fear because fear has to do with punishment,” something the forgiven believer does not have… It would seem perhaps this could be seen a bit differently under the New Covenant? Furthermore, do you feel that feeling terrified of God makes you love God? I guess I could agree that some people need terrified fear to come to God because perhaps otherwise they would have no reason if they had no terror of judgement. Yet others are drawn in to God by His love. We love Him because He loved us first. I don’t personally relate to falling in love with God due to terrorizing fear of Him. I fell in love with Him because of His loving mercy. I feel there’s more free will to actually have genuine love for Him without having to be feared into it. Once again, I’m using ‘fear’ in the context of terrified. If we want to talk about awe and reverence, then I fear God immensely. It is my faith in God as a Just Judge that makes me lack fear of His judgment to me personally. We know the way to Salvation and have it. I used to be terrified, but lacked loving closeness of God which made me lack faith in my own Salvation. In this way, love was not perfected until it cast out my fear. But that’s just my personal experience. Perhaps it’s a matter of semantics that make this confusing to people.

      Some other questions: based on your first statement in your first replied comment to me… Do you feel salvation is conditional and in what way? The way I used it may have not had enough explanation. I feel that many churches “shut the door of Heaven” to certain groups without giving them a true chance. It’s the mentality of “you’re already going to burn in hell, so why bother.” Instead they pridefully mock that they don’t have that “particular sin” and to have such is impossible to be a Christian. This reminds me of the Pharisees which Jesus publicly condemned for these acts. He had much more mercy on those considered unclean and unholy by the Pharisees. How strong is the Grace of the blood of Jesus? Does He only cover some sins of Christians but not others?

      Also, I am a bit unclear on John 3:16 being taken out of context. Can you explain this a bit more? The “so” in “God so loved the world” isn’t in the Greek. Also the proceeding verses seem to refer to Numbers 21:8. (The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.”)

      Lastly for now, there is one thing I see taken out of context possibly. The “Lord, Lord” verse. This is not speaking to Christians…. Read in context to whom Jesus is speaking about: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” – Matthew 7:15-23

      Did your catch that? Jesus is talking about a specific audience here. This is not a condemned believer who is totally shocked that they are rejected by God. Nor is it a condemned believer who didn’t do enough good works or broke the law one too many times. Jesus is in no way speaking of Christian believers. Rather, He is warning us about false prophets AMONG the believers. Not everyone who claims to be a believer is a believer. Thus, not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” and does works USING THE NAME of God is a Christian. A wolf in sheep’s clothing knows its a wolf. Jesus is talking about those who don’t truly believe in Jesus as Savior and spread lies using the name of God for their own gain. So to the true believer in Christ, this verse should not strike any terrorizing fear, as we know we have 100% Salvation when we have faith in the power of His redemptive blood!

      “The rules” were not given as the means to salvation, but given to show our need for a Savior (reference Romans 7:7-25). When we become comfortable in our sin, we offend the One who is without sin. In our comfort in sin, we can begin to question our faith and ask “Who is God to tell me what not to do?” In the worst case scenario, a previous believer can RENOUNCE their faith and fully embrace their sin. “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.” -Romans 8:5. Once a believer, “you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit of God.” -Romans 7:4 One cannot “lose” their salvation, but do have the free will to reject it. Sin can dangerously lead us away from our faith in God, but it cannot void the saving blood of Jesus as forgiven believers. To say anything less is to put our faith in the works of the Law, and we are told “If we live under The Law, we will die under The Law.” The one who endures to the end in their faith will be saved! (Reference Matthew 24:13.)

      This is not to say that action isn’t required by our faith, but that action is a RESULT of our faith. As we know, “faith without works is dead.” This doesn’t mean that we are saved by both our works and then our faith, but that works are a reaction to faith. Anything less means that faith is weak or not in us. What we see more often than not is the other way around; “works without faith.” Many rely on their works to save, but they fail in faith of the grace of the one true Savior.

      “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags…” -Isaiah 64:6. We have received the gift of our salvation, despite our sin nature. How has your belief in Ephesians 2:8 changed? As a believer, your sin has no power to eternally condemn you, as “there is NO condemnation of those in Jesus Christ.” He knows our weakness as fallen creatures. “The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him. For he knows how weak we are; he remembers we are only dust.” -Psalms 103:14. Indeed we strive throughout our life for righteousness as you say. For me, this is all encompassing love towards others, as not to harm them. So if our foundation is in Jesus Christ, we cannot be eternally condemned: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.” -1 Corinthians 3:11-15. So what does this mean? If our foundation is in Christ, our works are tested and rewarded. But if we don’t have a foundation in Christ, the wages of our sins brings forth death, and even the second death after the last day. It is only by Jesus that we are given the gift of eternal life. Those who choose against it will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire created for the eternal creatures who rebelled (fallen angels, i.e. Satan and the demons). This is in fact an eternal punishment, as there is no turning back from complete destruction. “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”are those who know their fate after the Great White Throne of Judgment and react in grief and anger, as their fate is death.

      So as a Christian believer in Jesus Christ, you will NEVER hear Him say “I never knew you. Depart from me!” Instead, this is what He has said about you: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.” -John 10:27-30

      What is your take on this? Thank you again for your words. 🙂
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti
      P.S. You quoted my experience with men and asked me why I let the flesh control me…. I did let the flesh control me (past tense) ironically when I was in fear of judgment in order to try to be straight to gain God’s approval. I was in error and repented of these things.

  52. Gary says:

    Xavier,

    Let me ask you this: what have you done to treat your anxiety and PTSD?

    • Xavier says:

      Hi, Gary.

      For a little more than a year I am attending a weekly interview with my psychologist, but it has become a joke more than anything.. She just let me talk, It is just running in circles., But with my latest crisis in the car, I am now convinced more than ever my trauma is about the fear of dispossession of my body and panic of a sudden death..

      I have also talked with a psychiatric doctor, to try medicine drugs, but guess he gave me some strong oens and I can’t stand the “drug” effect, precisely the feeling of “floating” that I am so scared about., It felt like cannabis. I need to be sober and in confidence, in control with myself and my environment to deal with my anxiety properly.

      Lately I have read about EMDR, some eyes movement method supposed to chase off haunting memories, but haven’t tried yet.. this seems fake.. I am still reading about this.

      Thanks for your care, Gary!
      Xavier.

      • Hi Xavier… A quick note, as you know I’m out today. I was actually going to bring up EMDR to you in my next message, because I know from many that this truly works, as strange as the concept sounds! I have known many who spent years in traditional therapy, and then a few weeks of EMDR and they said it was tremendously more helpful. So this is something you should seriously and prayerfully consider…. 🙂
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Top Gun says:

        Hey Xavier,
        I’ve been reading your comments. From what I can gather, anxiety controls your life. Brother it’s a spirit. No matter what method you use to “get rid” of it it won’t be of any use. Yes psychological therapy can work but only in the short run and guess what, you’ll be enslaved in this therapy, it will be part of your life.

        This spirit is tormenting you. One word of advice, stay away from those mind numbing drugs. They open you up to more demons and quite frankly I applaud you for trying to be sober and not take them. We are called to remain sober. We are called not to be drunk on wine but be filled with the Holy Spirit. The only clean spirit there is.

        For your conscience and the fear of death, here’s some word of advice and encouragement that I hope you take in faith and trust the LORD. When Jesus went to Mary and Martha after their brother died, they told Jesus that if he had been there earlier, Lazarus wouldn’t have died. What was Jesus answer? “Thy brother shall rise again”. Now here’s the confidence that we should all have:

        Martha said “I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day”

        Jesus then said, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall NEVER die.”

        If you were to read this, then you come to the part where Jesus asks if you believe this. My friend, this is written for us. We just have to believe and trust in the LORD.

        Last scripture to look at is Hebrews 2. In this chapter we see that even though Jesus IS greater than the angels, He lowered Himself for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man.

        It goes on to say that since we are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Jesus) also likewise took part of the same (became flesh and blood); that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.

        Now here’s the real kicker, Jesus also delivered them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

        This spirit of anxiety, wants you back under bondage. We are at war against principalities and powers of darkness! Their goal is to take the freedom away that Christ has given to you and put you under bondage and condemnation.

        Trust in the word of God. Here’s something that I don’t recommend often, fast. Many people have been delivered from strongholds by fasting for days. I’ve heard of people (through reliable sources) that went into fasting and 2-3 days in delivered from addictions, strongholds. They literally said I’m free I don’t want to do that anymore.

        Getting help from doctors I’m not against but when it comes to mental health, there’s always a spirit behind it. No medication or therapy will get rid of spirits. It’s in the supernatural realm that needs healing.

        You can get healing from the Mighty Healer himself. Jesus name has authority, fast and flood your mind with the two-edged sword that pierces every heart. Put on your amour, take up your weapon and rush headlong into battle againsts these spirits for the LORD your God is with you. I have confidence that He WILL deliver you. Stand in the name and authority of The Lord Jesus Christ and do not back down, because we do not head off to war to lose, we go into war to win.

        Our God mocks the powers of darkness through fluffy little sheep because His sheep beats the wolf pack. We go out into the world as sheep with faces of lions because the Living God dewells within us. Even though we look weak, even though we are physically weak, spiritually greater is he who is in me than he who is in the world.

        Don’t have faith in the power of sin and darkness. Have faith in the mighty power of Jesus Christ that sets us free!

        I’ll be praying for you!

  53. Gary says:

    Top Gun,

    To say that Xavier is possessed by evil spirits is irresponsible. We are not in the Dark Ages when illness was believed to be caused by evil spirits, sin and darkness, and witches were burned at the stake. As one who’s been there, I know Xavier needs and will greatly benefit from professional therapeutic and cognitive care to help him lead a happy life.

    • Top Gun says:

      Gary,
      How is it irresponsible? The spirit of fear has many people in bondage, and quite frankly not from God. Will greatly benefit and help? Many diseases have no cure and many of those disease are psychometric diseases. You can have the best facilities to “help” you but you will never get to the root of the problem. Yes they can be treated but it can never be removed completely.

      PS I was born and grew up in a third world country where people are spiritually in touch with the supernatural of both good and evil. Long story short, my mums sister was possed by a demon after she grew ill as a result of sorcery. (To a point where she was on her death bed). Now this demon kept spouting out things that people kept to themselves and did not want other people to know. This demon mocked preachers who came from around the region and asked who they were when they tried to cast this demon out. This warfare with the demon happened for almost two weeks. I was very young at the time and and the kids were put in tents away from the house where this was happening. (We lived in another region of the country but flew in to see my mums sister)

      In the end, my mum and her siblings found out that it was an issue within the family that had to be sorted before this demon could be cast out. After reconciling and forgiving each other, they were given the authority to look the demon in the eye and command it to leave in Jesus’ name. Not saying that Xaiver is like this. It’s just an example of what is actually beyond the natural realm of the things that we can see and measure and control etc.

      I used to have anxiety too (it’s hard not to if you’re studying at uni) but after solid prayer and reading the word of God, I have been able to tell that fear to leave. We as the children of God cannot have anxiety. That’s not the spirit that God puts within us but we can allow it to enter into us if we lack faith (like I did) and not trust in Him.

      To Xaiver if you read this:
      Trust in the Word of God. Go into fasting and prayer and He will show you the root of this fear and He will deliver it from you. Have faith. That’s the currency of the Kingdom of God. God rewards the faithful. No greater warrior, healer, comforter, King, than Jesus Christ. He will lead you into battle and He will bring you victory.

  54. Xavier says:

    Hello, thanks for your suggestions, Top Gun, Gary, and Moanti.

    I really appreciate your support. I must say, it is obvious in Scriptures, there ARE demons and the devil at work, our Lord was very clear on this, chasing some constitutive of certains of His Miracles.. We can’t deny it, even if our modern science frame it as ignorance.. Was the LORD ignorant..? As the saying goes; is it not the best success of Satan, to make us think he does not exist..?

    I am coming from a Spanish family by my father side, his parents were not speaking a word of French as they immigrated during the Franco revolution days of 1935+, and I never heard them say a word of French later as they lived on, either. I believe it would not be too far fetched to say they were from gypsies communities, with this kind of “surnatural” beliefs..I grew up in this context too, and I have also my share of “surnatural” events proving me of both the presence of a Holy Spirit, God and of evil spirits..

    I will consider everything with all interest, right now I am concerned with my panic about cars, and to say how I am sometimes oppressed mercilessly and convicted to be a gay man myself for “attracting” another male, is all but my doing..

    Thanks again,
    Xavier.

  55. Angela says:

    My only problem is when reading things like this. Since many of the right wing use this.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html

    How can this be possible. The thought of God doing this.

    • Xavier says:

      Hi, Angela.

      Why do you attribute to God the growth of sexual orientation..? It can go in any direction, you know..

      We are created as free beings, with FREE WILL.. As adult persons we become accountable to God in thoughts, in words and in actions.

      It is bound to hapopen, whatever argments sued to push and “justify” sinful behaviors as acceptable are used for o other sinsful behaviors. I befriend Moanti very much but I trust she knows my belief by now, one must repent if they fall in practicing homsoexual sex, in fantasy or in actions, “heterosexual” or “bisexual” or “homosexual” alike. No free pass with God, who did not spare His own Son!

      That comparison is not so shocking, don’t you know in Greco-Roman times, it was pederasty that was celebrated..? Litteraly, masculine homosexual pedophilia..

      I will tell you one thing, I agree with you this analogy is not fair, as children/preteens are not adults to exercice free will.. However, think about incestual tendencies. Persons attracted to people of their own families, for mating / loving.. I think this is fair comparison, andjust as as unaccebtale as homosexual behaviors are to God’s values.. “The curse of brotherhood”.. I trust we are all brothers and sisters in blood, at the only exception of man and woman created from a same being, joining in Marriage again,as spouses.

      Peace,
      Xavier.

      • Xavier says:

        Islam..

        This is a political religion of sort.. I won’t go there, and I believe it is NOT the end of the Revelation, either..

        Rather, the worship of the man, conquering others and using women, licenced to kill and to sin in manyw ays by their “God”..

        Sorry for Muslims reading me, but I can’t find any Holiness in Islam, pushing back to harsh ancient laws when Christ proved it could not save us, as to please God we have to rely on Him alone in all aspects of our lives, do His Will, that is the true religion, to help others in need and abstain from sinning.. Amen.

    • Xavier says:

      I forgot to say something.

      It is not a licence I give, at all but yes, people MUST be accepted regardless of their sexual orientation, as I think it is fair we have little control over it.. At baby steps, only.

      Especially in the case of “pedophilia”, where people convicted of molestation risk to be killed in prisons, or at their home by false rumors accusing them, causing suicides and public execution..

      Finally, that is totally private information, what raise sexual arrousal to select individuals, at any rate.. As we keep the most “unusual” ones to ourselves, as any decent eprson should adn must do, as I don’t and won’t care care what the neighbor does in their privacy; problem solved, no social discrimination about it!

      Xavier.

  56. Anthony says:

    Greetings, Moanti…

    “It further demonstrates that the Bible does not explicitly condemn consensual same-gender God-centered monogamous, life-long unions.”

    This other “gay” Christian person is sharing a completely different belief from yours…

    Introduction :

    http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.fr/2012/01/is-there-gospel-for-homosexuals.html

    Conclusion :

    http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-there-gospel-for-homosexuals.html

    Your “alternative perspective” is in fact, matching this man first stage in his Christian edification, but you adopted it, and are still in denial, holding this blog, committed to oppose the truth of God’s Word, using your intelligence “holding the truth in unrighteousness”… In self-righteousness. 😦

    “My stance on homosexuality when I first converted was the typical one assumed by people who had strenuous difficulty reconciling the idea of a loving God who would restrict who a person could love. In other words, I believed God condoned committed monogamous homosexual relationships. Studying the Bible my hope was to find support for my initial position. I didn’t. The more I studied the firmer drawn I was to the traditional Christian stance that participating in homosexual relationships is a sin.”

    Published or not, I pray my comment witll be your opportunity to join this admirable believer and brother in Christ, Thoughtful Faith…

    God save.

    • Hi there Anthony,
      Thank you for your thoughtful comment and the link. I read Rolo’s testimony and find it inspiring in that each of us have our own convictions within our faith and individual gifts from The Lord (as supported by 1 Corinthians 7:7 and Romans chapter 14.) In Rolo’s case, the gift of celibacy is clear and also evident that he is convicted that homosexual relationships are off limits for him, as to him, it is truly a sin.

      I do have a few comments about his quote. As reference he said, “My stance on homosexuality when I first converted was the typical one assumed by people who had strenuous difficulty reconciling the idea of a loving God who would restrict who a person could love. In other words, I believed God condoned committed monogamous homosexual relationships. Studying the Bible my hope was to find support for my initial position. I didn’t. The more I studied the firmer drawn I was to the traditional Christian stance that participating in homosexual relationships is a sin.” First, Rolo assumes that the stance of believing God accepts homosexual relationships is “typical” of those who initially struggle. If one takes a good look at the gay Christian population, I would say that the typical experience is quite the opposite. Most start out with a view of feeling condemnation by the influence of modern views of Scripture and henceforth, feel condemned by God for any same-gender relationship. So Rolo’s first stage in Christian edification is not at all typical to hold the alternative view initially. There’s really quite a range of “ends” to the conclusions met by gay Christians depending on both their individual convictions and depth of study. The alternative view that God does not Scripturally condemn Christ-centered same-gender lifelong monogamous covenants is only met with intensive study into the original language of Scripture and looking at cultural context. Although the Bible was written for all people and all generations, one must still take into account the differing practices of the time which can make all the difference in discerning meaning. This is especially important when we consider that most modern Bible versions insert “homosexuals” where it is explicitly referring to the ancient sexual shrine prostitution practices surrounding idol worship ceremonies and savage gang-rape.

      Sad to say, there are a number of modern Bible versions that have demonized homosexuality and inserted assumptions that were not even in English Bibles prior to 1946. Granted, even if these modern versions failed to insert the word “homosexuals,” one might still mistake “effeminate” in the King James Version for gay (if one thinks all gays, both men and women, are physically effeminate,) but even “abusers of themselves with mankind” is not an obvious enough description to conclude it to mean homosexuals in monogamous unions, that is without a preconceived belief that it is speaking against gays. Likewise, many could mistake the modern definition of the word “Sodomites” in the King James to mean homosexuals, but this has clearly been defined in Greek as “temple prostitutes.” But these are just some obscure loose arguments, as you will find stronger support above.

      Speaking of this, Rolo also reported that he wasn’t able to find anything in the Bible that supported the alternate view. Here is where we differ. I have spend years drawing to these conclusions and have found numerous areas of support throughout Scripture that holds to this position. So my “first step” was that of feeling like I was condemned to hell for even having these unwanted feelings, let alone considering a same-sex relationship. Based on the modern traditional teachings of my conservative Christian upbringing, I felt I was not offered a chance at salvation as a lesbian. I attempted to be heterosexual for years without a grain of success. I went through a phase of attempting to reject God, but this was just as hard, if not moreso, than trying to be straight! I could not deny the love for our Creator which called me to study deeper into His Word, hence my Christian edification came by these studies, not by lack thereof.

      I do not condemn Rolo for his conclusions, as I believe many gay Christians are called to a life of celibacy and I believe God tailors what he reveals to whom the gift has been given. But for those who are not called to celibacy, the Scriptures do offer an alternate translation when you study the original text.

      When Christians can stop portraying heterosexuals as the only “whosoever” in John 3:16 and learn to recognize that we can have differing blessed roles in the body of Christ, than we can be spiritually fruitful and multiply believers as we are called to do. But when one holds to the modern traditional view and portrays heterosexuals as the only candidate for salvation, the inclusiveness can bear bad fruit and cause many potential believers (gay or straight) to run from the only Salvation in Jesus Christ. This is because they see Christians as being rejecting of an entire group of people. Do you see how this can actually be a major problem in attempting to spread the Gospel? We are called to be fishers of men, not hunters. Please read 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

      My ultimate confirmation that solidified all that I have learned in Scripture on this topic has come through the good fruit of growing in The Lord with my partner and focusing on Him in our daily walk. When two redeemed Christians are joined in a Christ-centered covenant, they are no longer slaves to consequence of sin, as they are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. His grace is sufficient and His power is made perfect in our weaknesses. None of us are worthy without his saving blood, and we are grateful to Him every moment that He has blessed us with the only Salvation that none of us deserve by our own works. Praise Yahweh for sending Yeshua ha-Mashiach, our only true Salvation!

      I’m not sure of your background or what drew you to have interest in this topic, but I thank you for your words and know that it will touch readers, especially those who mutually share in your convictions. May God bless you abundantly!
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti
      P.S. I just realized that you might have made some other comments on another page of mine. I will edit them (at your request) when I’m able to get on a computer in the next few days, as my mobile device makes this quite difficult to go back to previous comments. Thanks for your patience!

  57. Anthony says:

    Moanti, Moanti…

    I was, am “just” the messenger on your page, and there is NO ROOM for ‘alternative perspective’ and ‘personal interpretation”,… Because there is only ONE lawgiver, God does not leave us “figuring out” anything, or so few….

    Believers are called to repentance and to Holiness, ordered to love God first, to love the neighbour as oneself, second.

    God commands, sexual intimacy is meant for physical procreation, and for emotional bonding of the two partners, this wonderful GIFT of God belong to, and is blessed EXCLUSIVELY for and between one man and one woman, commited to each other…

    The rest, all this WALL of personal interpreting you builded up is your INTELLIGENCE hard at work to refuse, oppose and deconstruct what GOD SAYS in Scriptures and to your conscience if you are aware, your words are coming from your self-deceit, NOT from the Holy Spirit or YOU WOULD NEVER ARGUE WITH WHAT GOD SAYS IN THE FIRST PLACE… I am praying for you so much to wake up from this, to this!!!

    Sorry for my use of caps it is to put emphasis!!!

    IF you are conducting sexual activity with your “partner” you are both sinning, that is all I say, and as a brother in Christ, my responsiblity it to tell you are sinning, breaking God’s law; to urge you to correct your mistakes, errors, misbehaviors in this case, this is your privacy and I am not curious nor interfering if you have sexual relations with your “partner” being another woman you should STOP, remember to love God is to OBEY GOD, to keep God’s commands and it comes FIRST AND FOREMOST, the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, BEFORE “loving” your neighbour, which comes “only” second, the woman you call “partner”….

    But your sin to spread your “heretic” view publicly here is a sure one, it is working AGAINST God’s Will because against traditonal Christian teachings, which are accurately, factually, correctly in line with Scriptures writings because of ancient writings DEMONsTRATING the REAL MZANING of these passages of Scriptures dealing with “homosexuality”…. .

    Israël Jews, and Chrisitanity Church fathers knew BETTER THAN YOU their OWN language, culture and MEANING of Scriptures for themselves, these passages you are committed to deconstruct and reform have HISTORICALLY been understood and used to condemn homosexual behaviors, and you will NEVER change this…

    I “hate” your dedication to try to change the “rules” God has set for standards and ideals, for our human sexuality…

    Even “Marriage” you call this person, your “wife”…

    It is really, not possible to agree. too much to accept, as a fellow Christian.

    Thats is all I am saying, not judging to condemn but to SAVE. only caring to share the Gospel.

    And I am now done here, able to “shake the dust off my feet” and to “wash my hands”, I annoucned the Gospel here,, I can only pray for you and leave you to God’s Hands…

    PLEASE know, outside of Christ there is no hope for Salvation, God will ultimately, sooner or later destroy his enemies. namely unrepentant sinners…

    God SAVE. though only the repentant turning away from their sins, placing their faith in Christ!

    Ps : I am using pseudonyms, “Christian57”, “Anthony”… You know me Moanti, I am, X….

  58. Anthony says:

    Hi, Moanti, a last addition…

    “The alternative view that God does not Scripturally condemn Christ-centered same-gender lifelong monogamous covenants ”

    BUT Scriptures do not specifically adress ANYWHERE the issue of, let say an extreme one, “pedophiia” either… Shall “we” then assume, it may be, or IS not wrong and not sinful to conduct and entertain such behavior…?

    The Bible does not speak of drug abuses, or cannibalism in ill terms IIRC, either… Is this “okay” since it is not written against in clear letters…?

    Now back to reality and FACTUAL, objective, relatable statements and TRUTHS, Biblical Scriptures, God’s written Word do not condemn “Christ-centered same-gender lifelong monogamous covenants” between “incestuous” brother and sister either, a very much valid argument and totally in context, because in Leviticus Scriptures, HOMOSEXUALITY is mentioned in between INCEST and BESTIALITY, no less….

    What you give to one, you must give to the other, THIS is the DANGER of you playing word games with God’s moral laws on human sexuality, the problem with your commitment to give licence to homosexual behavior equals granting the same “right” to these others immoral sexual activities, because mentioned in the exact same verses and context the Biblical prohibition to lead homosexual behaviors is sitting on!!!

    On a more quiet note…

    I do not know if you could read the full set of Rolo’s articles, he wrote four in total.

    1 : http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.fr/2012/01/is-there-gospel-for-homosexuals.html

    2 : http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.fr/2012/01/is-there-gospel-for-homosexuals-can.html

    3 : http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.fr/2012/01/is-there-gospel-for-homosexuals-is-god.html

    4 : http://thoughtful-faith.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-there-gospel-for-homosexuals.html

    Here they are again, for the reference on your main page for readers, and my last contribution and participation to your blog normally, I pray for you so much…

    God save, welcome sinners grieving with sincere repentance… Amen..

    • Angela says:

      One problem the bible straws we should treat our bodies like temples and that drunkness is wrong beer can be an addict can it not and so beer is considered a drug. Also pedophila is mentioned
      http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm

      Question for you if Leviticus does say all that notice something a bout Toevah when in Greek is means taboo not sin which is different hewbrew. Also notice that the Egyptians called the Jews Toevah the Jews weren’t a sin but a taboo

  59. Anthony says:

    Hello Angela, I am sorry I do not understand your question on the topic of “Toevah”.

    The article you share… It seems Scriptures support the age of puberty is the marriageable age, and likely was in Biblical times…

    I find nothing wrong with this statement and idea, because “pedophilia” AFAIK is the sexual abuse of children by teenagers, or adults….

    Teenagers are not “innocent children” and while in puberty, are “normally” able to reason for themselves.

    The age of 15 or 16 to start having sexual relations, while I do not condone is not shocking me, puberty is adequate with the general human experience, and my personal experience of “self-discovery” about sexuality, my humble and honest opinion….

    Regards.

  60. Gary says:

    Hi Anthony, (Christian57).

    You know me as Gary from Erik’s blog.

    I’d like to get to know you more personally, if you don’t mind, since I find people who write in caps to be an interesting type of person.

    In order for you to feel more comfortable in telling us about yourself, let me tell you a little more about me than you already know from Erik’s blog.

    I’m 65 and gay, obviously! I’ve been with my partner for 29 years and we’ve been married for the past 2 years and live in California. We raised, as I’ve mentioned on Erik’s blog, three boys together. The two oldest are married and the oldest has three children with his wife and the middle son has 5 children with his wife. Unfortunately, they live very far away, so we don’t get to visit with them as often as we’d like. But there is always Skype!

    So, if you don’t mind, could you share some personal information about yourself? Are you married or single, you have kids?

    Gary

    • Anthony says:

      Hello, Gary.

      Thank you, nice to meet you here, too. Interesting try to turn the focus from the message to the messenger, but “sorry”, I am not willing to involve myself personally, the game of comparisons does not sit well with me, because irrelevant, useless.

      I am content and right to present, and involve myself not any further than being the “messenger” to Christian believers reading this blog…. This status I am claiming for myself is supported by the evidence of my words matching “tradtional” teachings, building on Revealed Scripture, I aim for objectivity as a “brother in Christ”….

      My call here to believers in the Biblical God is, to “believe” is not enough, one must FOLLOW Christ and Biblical teachings to be “saved”… If not taking that REQUIRED “leap fo faith”, one would stay at the door struck in wonder of, and by God’s promises, “believing” but missing their chance, failing to FOLLOW, mandatory action and “lifestyle” of serving Gog, to become a RIGHTFUL heir to the Kingdom of God, and of Christ, through their growing faith and obedience to God’s Word and Will …

      The truth is, God REVEALS the “truth” to “believers” in Sacred Scripture, and through His Holy Spirit “speaking” to the conscience of said believers, “God’s people” who are engaging by their own free will, or their “worship” has no value, convinced by God’s LOVE to apply these rules for their lives, to become true, faithful followers of Christ and a LIGHT for others…

      Indeed, God sets the rules, not individuals committed to defend their thinking and sinful behavior(s), day and night acommodating Scripture to their personal preferences,…

      The majority of “Gay Christians” I encounter, and sadly Moanti included by evidence of her claims, seem commited to try to justify their sinful behavior, in this case, their same-sex attraction as “God given” (NOT!!),and homosexual conduct as “God honoring”, (blasphemy, heresy no less!!), determined to apply their subjectivity in reading and twisting Scripture by all means at their disposal, using clever ways to persuade others, digging their self-deceit, and actually corrupting the Church from within….

      Well I am committed to lead them “false teachers” politely to the door, I hate evil.

      As for the caps in my text, it is to put emphasis where emphasis is due, words not having tone….

      My disclaimer, a little arranged for the occasion :

      Unbelievers are free to go their own way, of course and not expected to stop pursuing their romantic / sexual preferences to please a God they do not believe in…At their own risk and on their own decision.

      Individuals claimlng to be “Christians” must be measured, judged according to their beliefs matching what God reveals, and evidently their behavior, conduct, attitude, “lifestyle” matching God’s law in broad term of ethics and morality, ie Marriage is God’s institution designed and declared the union of one man and one woman exclusively, and “sex” is God’s gift for the two spouses to share, exclusively again….

      Any and all “believers”, opposing this simple truth about Holy Marriage and Sexuality by God’s Word and Will for His People must be pointed out as deceivers, by their own claims and / or deeds.

      I conclude my comment, by sharing an article I swear I could have written, proof the Holy Spirit is one and the same “voic” within ACTUALChristian believers…

      https://answersingenesis.org/family/homosexuality/gay-christians-now-becoming-the-norm/

      Regards, and AMEN

      • A says:

        One problem all the laws are in Lev 20 are repeated in Deuteronomy expected Lev 18:22

        According to the traditional understanding of the Bible, the third book, the Book of Leviticus, was delivered to Moses at Sinai, and then (primarily) transmitted to the Levites, or priestly class (hence its name). The law is then retransmitted by Moses to the Israelites in the form of speeches before entering the Promised Land in Deuteronomy, the fifth book.

        Leviticus 18 describes many forbidden practices; Leviticus 20 repeats them, and details which deserve capital punishment. Deuteronomy repeats most of the laws of Leviticus, repeating that several are severe enough to merit capital punishment. What’s interesting is that the prohibition, under penalty of death, for “lying with men in beds-of-women” is not repeated in Deuteronomy. Or is it?

        Well, isn’t that odd…

        Only one capital crime—20:13, supposedly against homosexuality—isn’t mentioned at all in Deuteronomy.

        But there is a prohibition that is probably related. It’s Deuteronomy 23:17. Let’s start with the KJV translation:

        There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

        And then the Interlinear translation from the original Biblical Hebrew:

        She shall not become a hallowed prostitute (kedeshah) from daughters of Israel and he shall not become hallowed male prostitute (kadesh) from sons of Israel.

        \begin{table}[h]
        \centering
        \caption{My caption}
        \label{my-label}
        \begin{tabular}{llc}
        Leviticus 20 & Deuteronomy & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Crime} \\
        3-5 & 12:31 & Sacrifices to Molekh \\
        6 & 18:10-11 & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Familiar spirits,\\ divinations and wizards\end{tabular} \\
        9 & 27:16 & Cursing your parents \\
        10 & 5:18 \& 22:22 & Adultery \\
        11 & 27:20 & Relations with your father’s wife \\
        12 & 27:23 & Relations with your parents in law \\
        13 & absent! & \multicolumn{1}{l}{“””lying with men in beds-of-women”””} \\
        absent! & 23:17 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{Being a male temple prostitute (kadesh)} \\
        14 & 27:22 & Incestuous relations \\
        15-16 & 27:21 & Bestiality
        \end{tabular}
        \end{table}

  61. A says:

    .tg {border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0;}
    .tg td{font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;padding:10px 5px;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;overflow:hidden;word-break:normal;}
    .tg th{font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:normal;padding:10px 5px;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;overflow:hidden;word-break:normal;}
    .tg .tg-s6z2{text-align:center}

    Leviticus 20
    Deuteronomy
    Crime

    3-5
    12:31
    Sacrifices to Molekh

    6
    18:10-11
    Familiar spirits, divinations and wizards

    9
    27:16
    Cursing your parents

    10
    5:18 & 22:22
    Adultery

    11
    27:20
    Relations with your father’s wife

    12
    27:23
    Relations with your parents in law

    13
    absent!
    “””lying with men in beds-of-women”””

    absent!
    23:17
    Being a male temple prostitute (kadesh)

    14
    27:22
    Incestuous relations

    15-16
    27:21
    Bestiality

  62. A says:

    Leviticus 20 Deuteronomy Crime
    3-5 12:31 Sacrifices to Molekh
    6 18:10-11 Familiar spirits,
     divinations and wizards
    9 27:16 Cursing your parents
    10 5:18 & 22:22 Adultery
    11 27:20 Relations with your father’s wife
    12 27:23 Relations with your parents in law
    13 absent! “””lying with men in beds-of-women”””
    absent! 23:17 Being a male temple prostitute (kadesh)
    14 27:22 Incestuous relations
    15-16 27:21 Bestiality

    • Anthony says:

      Hello, Angela…

      I am not a “scholar” of the Bible to discuss “Deuteronomy”‘ with you, sorry.

      However, Why are you using this language :

      “””lying with men in beds-of-women”””

      Implying the majority of Bible translations, and that is about ALL official, professional work of coutnelss “scholars” and faithful Chrstians “may be” incorectly adressing homosexuality in Leviticus…

      Who are you fooling, spreading doubt like this….?

      When official translations, and Historical records of biblcial times use these Leviticus verses to denounce the practice of homosexuality right from the start, for millenaries, when Paul “aresonokoitai” word, term is ABSOLUTELY referring to these verses in Leviticus and translates INDEED as “men sleeping (sexually) with men”…

      Please, STOP being intellectualy dishonest, to cover your ears and eyes…?

      I am SICK AND TIRED of this bad faith, no other word going on with most of you “gay Christians” COMMITTED to introduce their personal agenda in Sacred Scripture!

      Serving themselves, their appetites of creatures, rather than The Creator…

      “That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. ”

      And I do just the same now, I have been nice and kind to try to stand for the Truth here, now I wash my hands and shake the dust from my feet, from this pro-gay blog disguised as a Christian faithful, seriously I shared the Gospel here properly, now finished.

      God saves humble, repentent sinners, Stubborn ones, can not complain. Amen.

  63. Anthony says:

    Seriously, the Bible SACRED Scripture, Our Humanity’s only SOURCE of Ancient Writings revealing the Abrahamic GOD to us, when the most of you claim to be “believers”, “Christians”, WHAT THE HELL is this ill will, bad faith, sick and twisted, NO other word fitting than WICKED commitment to ALWAYS challenge traditonal understanding of… ??

    Proved tried and true by Historical records, and you little folks dare to STAND and BATTLE against GOD claiming, “it’s time for a reform”.. ?!!

    From WITHIN the chruch, unacceptable!!

    I don’t even… I stop to bother, and to be bothered.

    Just my formal apologies for my “coldness”, lack of manners in my few last comments, yet understandable, I am out of nerves, patience after days, weelks of diligent care and compassion here, I feel I wasted my time and energy ONLY to face opposition from ill-willed, “believers”.

    I am done here.

    Regards.

  64. A says:

    Keep in mind the use of the word toebah is used to describe all of the pagan practices that the Lord was prohibiting; toebah is often translated as abhorrence or abomination in English, for the lack of a better word, but it is more accurately translated as bdelygmia in Greek, in early translations. Both toebah (Hebrew) and bdelygmia (Greek) carry connotations of idolatrous or ritually impure forms of detestable practices. In contrast, zimah (Hebrew) and anomia (Greek) are used to describe something that’s wrong in itself, a wicked injustice, like murder and rape (in fact, this term is used for these crimes in the Bible).

    and lev18:22 uses toebah

    • Anthony says:

      Hi, Angela.

      First, thank you to respond to me while not minding my nervous breakdown…

      I am sorry, my patience reached its limit, ago… My bad tone makes me feel bad, and I am sorry so much, but the meaning of my words stand the same, only my tone makes me ashamed…

      Your statement…

      Please view this article, if you will…

      http://www.pureintimacy.org/a/answering-pro-gay-revisionist-theology-talking-points/

      Relevant points :

      – It remains highly unlikely that Bible translators mistranslated five references to sexual ethics in two different testaments of Scripture. Even more unlikely is the possibility that they only mistranslated Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior.

      – Homosexuality in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy is mentioned in the wider context of sexual, immoral, and prohibited behaviors, casting doubt on the argument that Scriptures condemning homosexuality have been taken out of context.

      – References condemning homosexual behavior were addressed to highly different Ancient Near East cultures (from Hebrew to Greco-Roman) – nullifying the argument that scriptural passages against homosexuality are culturally bound and inapplicable to today’s society.

      I apologize for my bad manners again, please, read this artiivle if you are in the position of challenging, traditional interpretation of Scripture regarding this topic…

      Farewell.. I wish to take my leave of this discussion now, I am praying for you all to come to the Truth I have humbly, and also weakly and too forcefully forwarded here, my sincere apolgoies, I am just one human sinner as well, trying to help others from their errors and mistakes, misunderstandings and misconceptions….

      God alone is Good, and speaks the Turth, faithful Christian trust and obey.. Amen.

  65. Gary says:

    It is too bad that Anthony will not share some of his personal life, I think the motivation of the messenger is very important and to a large part creates the message.

    In the 19th century, money was the economic motivation of white slave owners which drove them to find verses in the Bible that justified slavery.
    In the 20th century, fear and hatred was the motivation of white people which drove them to find Bible verses that justified Segregation and White Supremacy. They also found Bible verses to condemn Interracial Marriage. The hatred of Jews motivated Anti Semites to find Anti Semitic verses in the Bible. People who hated women found verses in the Bible to deny women rights in America.

    But In the 20th and 21st century the motivation of people who find Biblical verses to justify and validate condemnation of the LGBT community is not so clear. There is a new twist. In the past, being black or white was quite obvious. But now, there is some closeted people with same sex attractions who harbor such an internalized homophobia that it’s hard to know what motivates them to spew venom against gay people. People like George Rekers,an antigay activist and cofounder of the Family Research Council who was caught returning from a European vacation with a male escort he found on Rentboy.com. Or Bob Allen, a former Florida state representative and cochairman of John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was arrested in 2007 for offering to pay an undercover officer for oral sex. He was one of the most homophobic politicians in the country. Or Senator Larry Craig, or megapastor Ted Haggard. Or most recently anti-gay Michigan pastor Matthew Makela, who recently made headlines after he was caught sending sexual messages to a man on Grindr.The list goes on and on and on.

    Sometimes the motivation is not clear but motivation matters.

    Let’s face it, you can use the Bible with equal conviction to justify being pro-gay or anti-gay, pro slavery or anti slavery, a Segregationist or an Integrationist. pro Jewish or anti Semitic.

    In the end, I think what God intended is for the Bible to be a window into people’s souls. Do they use it as a tool to justify their fears or prejudices or self-hatred. or as a force for good, to being people together.

    • Anthony says:

      Hello, Gary.

      There is no hidden motivation on my end other than the one I am openly stating, I am, was trying to help out “gay Christians” reading this one blog in particular, OUT of their denial / delusion, but from Today onward, I am done with this ungrateful task, chore.

      Lately I am regretting my endeavour to participate here, I was only following my God’s will to try and save some,… But I can not take it anymore, I am struggling to calm my nerves from this conflictual relationship I conduct with such people, “gay Christians” and really FIGHT my “sinful nature” to not HATE this group of individuals now…

      I know I generalize out of reason about this blog here specifically, because indeed I only interacted with three persons, much with Moanti and few with Angela, I assume both self-identify as “gay (ya, “lesbian Christian” for women…. It has a nice ring to it, but I can not stand it!) Christians”, and short comment with you Gary who are not claiming this name for yourself, so….

      But hey, I am not blind and not too stupid, either, I KNOW of the blooming of “gay Christians” websites sharing their self-serving, wicked intepretations of the “clobber passages”, close to ALL of these groups committed to confront and “reform” SACRED Scripture traditional understanding in the terribly misplaced order to make their deviance FIT, this blatant, defiant ill will and bad faith from self-professed “Christians” makes me SICK to the bone, to my core as one “heterosexual” outsider from these groups, and sadly so much more sicka dn sad as one faithful Christian believer and follower, me, their “brother in Christ”….

      I slowly but surely get my lesson learned and apply, obey Paul’s word of advice from GOD to not associate with persons claiming to be Christians brothers or sisters, yet are openly involved in sexual immorality, or defending such a sin taking a stand for “homosexualtiy” in this current case, situation against God’s despise for this practice, I am diligently removing evil, wckedness from within me, and ONLY THEN removing the stubborn, unrepentant wicked from within the Church is my sole concern……..

      Deceivers commited to twist the TRUTH of God’s WORD and WILL for their own,selfish gain, it is definitely my God’s wrath expressing in this, my temper boiling..

      God’s WRATH means GOD saying.. “What more could I have done to save….?”

      While destroying the stubborn and unrepentant sinners as due, according to their deeds, when His time will be right, on the Day of the Lord….

      “Hate the sin, love the sinner…”

      I must LOVE my enemies as I am commanded by my God, and FORGIVE “gay Christians” determination to try and jsutify their sin of choice, attempting to corrupt the Church of Jesus-Christ from withinh with self-serving, false teachings, doctrine…

      ◄ Romans 12:20 ►

      FORGIVENESS

      “9Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. 20″BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

      It is apppearing clear and udneniable to my thorough experience of the phenomenon, the majority of “gay Christians” are true deceivers much, much more than true believers, they are NOT following Christ but using and abusing of the image of kindness and openness of The Man, are committed to reform the traditonal understanding of the Bible, Sacred Scripture. to serve their own, selfish,and sinful, God awful homosexual desires and wishes….

      Scripture adresses the ACT of conducting homosexual interaction, that is ALL there is to read, no highly subjective “eisegesis”, this ERROR to read one’s personal agenda into the Holy text; thank you very much…..

      This movement is unacceptable why, because that group, the “gay community” is a modern, contemporary reality that has NOTHING to do with Scripture. Furthermore, being “gay Christian” is an oxymoronn, are there self-identifying “drunkard Christians”, or “thieves Christians” out there, or “incestuous Christians” retaining the first name of their personal struggle, sensibiltiy with sin tempting within them, …?

      The answer is NO. An internet meme fitting to this, “check your privilege”.

      One can not serve two masters, “either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other”… Two opposite “identities”, the choice must be done. Holding on to one’s same-sex “orientation”, attraction causing temptation to sin, while claiming to believe God SAVES , holding on His Revelation of despising homsoexual pratcice, is REALLY a CHOICE at the end of the (Judgment!) day after all, no clever pleading will change this fact.

      One is free to decide by God’s decreet, and held accoutnable for one’s decisions by the same God… Amen.

      Anyway, me, “homophobe” by motivation….? You Gary are not claiming to be a “gay Christian”,people’s privacy is NONE of my business, and frankly, I actually like you better for this reason, my ONLY purpose here as I kill, myself to say is, WAS to correct misunderstandings, for God’s Grace embracing the “gay Christian” community….

      But when said “misunferstandings” are in fact, made up lies, false teachings circulating in this community skilifully designed to affirm and celebrate their little person, to excuse and exalt their sin of choice, I can only shake my head in despair, wash my hands of it, and move on with my life…

      Leaving you all to, in God’s “hands” now..

      And without Trust and Obedience in God’s goodness…
      This means death brought upon oneself by their own free will.

      Amen

      Second part of my comment….

      Angela,

      I had the night to think over your “argument” of the absence of “homosexuality” prohibition not repeated in Deuteronomy, argument you took from “gay Chrsitiasn” circles, from Moanti’s article on this subject perhaps, whatever, whereever…

      Simple Answer, maybe scolls of Scrpture adressing this one point were lost, incomplete…? Maybe “homosexuality” it was not a problem for the Hebrew of this time enough to warrant the repeat …?

      “Toevah” for taboo pracitces of pagans, foreign from Israël… Well, the homosexual practice is rendered as “abomination” by official translations, so this match, right…?

      Actual answer, Old Testament anyway.. The New Testament is authoritative for believers willing to follow Christ and eventually become TRUE, faithful Christians, and there, Paul repeats God’s VERDICT and despise of homosexual practice, in a vastly, vastly different age and culture, era and context… Romans 1 from Saint Paul does not deal with “cultic practice” of homosexuality, I wrote this in my comment on Moanti’s article, the words “exchangrd,” abandonrd” are STRONG, conveying a sense of permanence, a LIFESTYLE of conducting homosexual acts, denounced by the Apostle, inspried by the Holy Spirit… Totally matching actual, “modern” homosexuality which is the same as any age and time, the “gay lifestyle” denounced in Sacred Scripture…

      People are people, right..? “sexual orientation” is a modern idea from pcsychologists, the “gay gene” is an outright lie, and the alleged immutablity of “orientation” is an activist strategy.. All of these concepts, notions, ideas and realities are not Biblical, not given but man-made, the latter (lobbies activism for widespread homosexuality “acceptance”) being unforgivable on a grand scale if you ask me, for lobbies members spreading sin, simply and furthermore their ILL WILL OPPOSNG GOD’s POWER TO CHANGE LIVES…. .
      Now if you, or any “gay Christian” claim to believe the Revelation, yet dismiss Paul as a trust-worthy, reliable Bible Authors to be inspired by God’s Holy Spirit for us believers education and Christian edification, well….. One not willing to learn can not be helped!!

      One deeper answer, the Biblical term of “idol” adresses anything or anyone, inanimate object or living subject inappropriately receiving the worship God commands His People to give to….

      Since all prohibition of sexual activity takes root, derives its reason of being from the BEST cause of God’s Will to protect His GIFT of sexual intimacy for the Crown of His Creation, the Human couple, the enjoyment and blessing of sex designed and destined EXCLUSIVELY to the married spouses, one man and one woman, the one and only, declared exclusive Godly Marriage instituted by God in Genesis and confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ during His ministry, on our Earth…..

      Since a sexual relation litterally means partners worshipping each other intimately…

      Since every human person, man and woman is designed with the GOD GIVEN POWER TO CREATE LIFE, pro-creator with GOD…

      Since Paul denounces in Romans the outside, Pagan “world”, culture serving the creature instead of the Creator…

      Then do the math, one person challenging, opposing God’s design of sex as His gift for married spouses, refusing to potentially, eventually GIVE LIFE to a new human being together, refusing to worship the procreative partner sexually in Godly Marriage becquse that is what sex is alla bout, such atttiude is leading one to…. ?

      To serving oneself, seflishly, and very likely, to experience homosexual lust, “homosensibity” taking one for GOD, and then, to homosexual acts, to homosexuality…

      One fact…Narcissism is impossble to evacuate from homosexual relations, taking for object of one’s love attributes of one self, even if they are also in another being.. Ie, masculinity, feminity, penis, vagina, body shape of the man or woman, strenght, softness, etc.. Indeed, homosexuality not only has idolatry for root as Paul revealed by the Holy Spirit insight, homosexuality IS idolatry in and of itself, in denying the other sex VITAL IMPORTANCE, THE OPPOSITE GENDER COMPLEMENTARY MEANING…

      Am I inspired by the Holy Spirit too, to develop and share this insight on the basis of Paul’s account recorded in Sacred Biblical Scripture…?

      Yes I am not speaking for my selfish gain, but for my God, to help and save.. Amen.

      Paul,draws this PERFECT parallel between idolatry and homosexuality, same-sex attaction derives from the self as evil coems from within, the desire and will to worship one’s own gender and sex, is not from God or it would NEVER be denounced constistantly over Old and New Testaments….

      Period

      May we, you all repent and be saved, or else….

      We, you are adults, we, you are responsible people.

      God holds me accountable for my actions, choices and my sins, so does God holds “gay people” accountable for theirs, no exception with God’s law, impartially fair to all…

      Playing the victim card does not work with Godn we, youare all without excuses!!

      A brutally honest article to read, my last contribution here…

      http://atheistcamel.blogspot.fr/2011/03/gay-christians-denial-deception-or.html

      Take care, all of us… Amen.

  66. Gary says:

    Again, I think it’s important to understand a person’s motivation. Especially in biblical interpretation.

    It is clear what my motivation is concerning homosexuality and the Bible.

    It is clear what Moanti’s motivation is concerning homosexuality in the Bible.

    It is clear what Rolo’s motivation was in describing his journey to becoming a gay Christian.

    Rolo’s analysis and conclusion in the links you provided must have hit a chord with you. By the way, his journey and conclusion are no different than most Catholic priests.

    So what about you, Anthony? What is your story? You certainly seem to have very strong opinions about homosexuality and Christianity and how those of us here are wickedly trying to, as you say: “reform” SACRED Scripture traditional understanding in the terribly misplaced order to make their deviance FIT, this blatant, defiant ill will and bad faith from self-professed “Christians” makes me SICK to the bone, to my core …”

    Wow, What gives?

    Or “I must LOVE my enemies as I am commanded by my God.” Really? We’re your enemies? What’s inside you that drives those comments? It’s easy to just sit at your little keyboard, pounding away at the caps key. It’s easy to throw hand grenades anonymously . It’s easy to say you just want to challenge gay-friendly interpretations of Biblical passages. But that’s not enough anymore. That’s a cop-out. There is something more, something deeper, going on with you, driving you.

    So, Anthony, calm your nerves, take a deep breath, forget about religion and everything else, and come clean.

    Who are you?

    Gary

  67. X..... says:

    Hello Gary,

    I assume to have already presented my motivation(s) very often and really, really clearly….

    Yes or no…?

    Last occurrence if not,

    I aimed to try to reason Moanti out of her “alternative perspective” because it is self-serving to her personally regardless of its effect on the “body of Christ” as a whole, Her position is favorable to her WILL, and to “homosexuals” WILL to reconcile their SEXUAL CONDUCT with the Biblical GOD sexual and covenantal standard “one man with one woman, for life”.

    I assume by the conclusive evidence of absence of debate surrounding it, self-indentifying “gay Christians”do NOT care for God’s approval of their “homosexual orientation” which indeed is not adressed in Scripture, same-sex attraction must be understood Biblically as one’s natural inclination to sin in this particular area of one’s sensibility and sexuality….

    Is this fair certain individuals suffer from such…? Well, more or less yes it is, Rolo’s article points it out very clearly, it is unfortunate but some persons are born with debilitating genetic anomalies, or life threatening diseases or in extreme poverty conditions, this is not from God but human conditions of life…

    To each their own personal situation with “life”, within our human societies, communities and DEFINITELY to each their own personal struggle(s) with SIN according to one’s personality and tendency to sin, for some it is same-sex attraction, for others it is inappropriate heterosexual lusting, or urges to consume alcohol, or drugs to the point of abuse, addiction..

    There is the “drunkard” gene scientifically proven out there, what about affected people indeed BORN with this unfortunate, not chosen condition within their BLOOD, are they RIGHTFULLY recognized and honored as the victims they are, what about Paul’s words that abusive drinking keeps a person from being an heir to God and to Christ Kingdom…? Personally I never, NEVER encountered a person struggling with alcoholism voicing such a claim, where “gay Christians” are building their campain using “victim status”, where there is NO “gay gene” to warrant such position, totally unreasonable in terms of HUMAN FREE WILL to chose for oneself, our ability and freedom to conduct moral decisions…. I say then, indeed to each their own trials, with their very own personal bad sides, and “conditions” to deal with!!

    “Gay Christians” are going one step further from SECULAR GAYS, and usually aim for their homosexual conduct, “lifestyle” affirmation and legitimization by the “Church”, Christianity standards for sexuality and “romance”, where secular, non-Christians gays are usually aimlng for the very same by their society’s standards… And rightly so to a point for and by secular gays, if you ask me!

    Not to blame her, but I read Moanti’s will to disassociate herself from secular gay community, sorry but I quote her, “I do not align myself with seculars, especially those seculars in the gay and lesbian “community.” I’m quite turned off by all of these things because of their secular ideas.” … I wonder if she is aware she causes MORE harm than “they” do, with her claims and militant activism aimed at attacking, “reforming” God’s standard for sexuality and Marriage, and theirs, only attempting the same for, by our human societies standards….

    I dare think I was clear enough in a previous comment of mine, the argument(s), tactic(s) she / one uses to neutralize God’s prohibition for His People to lead or submit to homosexual conduct, can be used and applied to the same ungodly behaviors presented and denounced in the very same verses and context, namely adiultery, incest, bestiality sexual acts….

    God’s design, moral order, is like a pile of dominos, if you take one away, the rest follows and the whole thing FALLS OFF, that is not possible and is not happening, this is my second motivation to WARN Moanti she is committing a SIN (aggravated by her publicly spreading it as valid!!) against GOD’s MORAL ORDER for human sexuality and Marriage, I warn potential Christian believers reading her blog content to not be deceived by this, her claims of “alternative pespective” and this was my third and last, final, obvious motivation.

    Now, you Gary can not reasonably join Moanti like you are her ally in this discussion, you are not a Christian believer, right..? Then you have no place in my “conservative Christian” disagreement to say the least, with “gay Christians” who happen to be like Moanti more than Rolo, ie self-deceived believers serving the gay agenda beyond society boundaries, attacking God’s standard for sexual and Marriage morality, from within the Church…

    “You certainly seem to have very strong opinions about homosexuality and Christianity and how those of us here are wickedly trying to, as you say: ”

    My strong opinion calls the practice of homosexuality, including same-sex attraction leading to it , what my God calls it, a “detestable abomination”, “dishonoring”, “shameful lust” and “degrading passion”.

    Politically correct? Cerainly not, I could be sued for “homophobic” hate speech.

    Biblically correct? Yes, these terms I use are Biblical, not created on my own opinion, and express God’s “feeling” about the coerced or worst, wilful conduct of homosexual behavior.

    “Those of us here” … No Gary, my words here are directed obviously and quite exclusively at Moanti’s authoring “pro-gay” articles fragilizing and potentially corrupting the Church, and very few to Angela’s few comments challenging traditional understanding of these “clobber passages” irritating me after days, weeks of my care here, I am still “just” human despite my committment and diligence to be one Christian servant of God, for others “sake”…

    “Those of us here” is not correct then, you are not a member of this group you claim to belong to, because you do not self-identify and not present yourself a Christian,

    “Those of them”, yes “gay Christians” invading the worldwide web with clever ways (lies) to “understand” Scripture favorable to their “lifestyle”; professing a Christian faith matching the self-abiding one of Moanti rather than the REVEALED, GOD-ABIDING, admirable Christian faith of Rolo is the sober and sad truth!

    This is factual, you can just type “gay Christian” on your browser and take a look to the results, there is a handful of websites, the overwhelming number of them created, led and maintaind by such groups of “Christians” committed to TWIST Biblical, Sacred Scripture, Record and Revelation of God’s person and WILL to our Humankind, and to the human person individually for believers, “gay Christians” whether they are sincere believers, but sincerely self-deceived (from which I judge Moanti to be) or outright ill-willed, malevolent people and “fake Christians”.

    Regadless are they “gay” or “fake” Christians, both groups of individuals are driven by the CLEAR motivation, a self-willed motivation serving oneself, not serving God’s will, not coming from the Holy Spirit of God or these persons would never, NEVER oppose and contradict God’s standard for humans sexuality and Marriage, people committed to accomodate their homosexual BEHAVIOR, to make it FIT with God’s blessing “heterosexual” sexual activity within “heterosexual” Marriage, claims of and for an “alternative” way to God’s way, SET for one’s Christian life….

    AM I wrong to denounce such act…?

    No I am not, I stand and defend Godly, Biblical Christianity and I humbly declare, my God grants me tremendous STENGHT AND COURAGE to dare take upon myself this ungrateful task, for once, for all! Any self-respecting and God abiding, diligent conservative Christian would do the same as I do, have done, driven by the same holy spirit inpulses.

    I am certainly not the guilty party in this “case”, it is NOT ME committed to oppose God’s Will for His People first and foremost, and human sexuality in general, committing sin by this action, hard at work attempting to change what is revealed, taught and known for millenaries on this topic, and you Gary know it like every honest person a minomum inforemd of the Bible writinsga nd teachinfgs knows it, God declares, among many, many other wrongs, the homosexual conduct a SIN of sexual immorality, because taking place OUTSIDE of His EXCLUSIVELY blessed “HETEROSEXUAL” Marriage, Period.

    The burden of this, Historical records, proof of MILLENARIES of Traditional Bible understanding, and translating, supports God’s disapproval of homosexuality practice by Israël Jews of the Biblical time and onward, given Saint Paul’s, a zealous Jew and DOCTOR of His God’s LAW, the God of Israël’s Law by Paul’s accounts, position and teachings followed by early Church fathers stands and WILL stand, as God is the ROCK in the ways of “gays” Christians or not, and there is no way around this FACT unless manipulating words and indeed, changing the Truth for a lie!

    Gary, do you realIy assume, maybe judge and believe I am happy to lose my nerves trying to HELP Moanti, and to see people I care for, stubbornly holding on their “arguments” …?

    You think totally wrong, if that so….

    Also if you must know I already “disclosed” who I am, I use pseudonyms, Anthony is my brother name, Christian57 is my faith with my department number, I participated to this blog, about one year ago day for day….

    I have no will to spend and seemingly, to WASTE more of my time here anymore. I wrote walls of text more or less politely and civilly, expressing my genuine care for Moanti, for “gay people”, for “gay Christians”, but if my care is taken wrongly as abuse and offense, like Eve took and judged God’s goodness and command to NOT eat the forbidden fruit in the middle of the garden of Eden, God’s order, “law” to be unfairly controlling, restricting, limiting her freedom, to be a malevolent lie as Satan inspired her to think, in the same way people oppose God’s “law” to NOT conduct sexual immorality IN OUR BEST INTEREST, then so be it.

    My motivation is, was genuine care and love, I said it, say it and stand on it.

    Seriously, think and say what you want, what you will.

    But please, don’t you or anybody dare holding an opinion of me that is FOREIGN from who I am, from my actual person, expressed clearly in my motivations, my actions, and my will I made known right from the start as “one humble messenger of God”, I will not tolerate it should I become aware of the travesty, the fallacy, the misdeed of wilful misinterpretaton and misunderstanding of the role I presented myself to “play”,and “played” here.. Thanks.

    Definitely not a game.I “play” with you people.

    We only see what we want in the end, the human free will is about where, on what, on who do we CHOSE to direct our focus, attention care… Who do we chose to trust, and to obey…

    To serve, and to worship…..?

    Me, I chose the Biblical God, I decide to trust and obey His Word revealing “good” and “evil”.

    Me, I chose and strive to hang on doing “good” for becoming, being and staying “good”, and to oppose doing and risk becoming “evil” for myself first, trying to set the example for others.

    I quote Scriptures :

    ◄ Matthew 22:36 ►

    New International Version

    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Me, I chose to serve and to worship the Creator, the first and the Greatest commandment , every day, Second commandment, I am serving others as I serve myself according to God’s standard for good and evil… With my best care for sure, and relative kindess normally, my claims of this testified by the most of my latest comments here, granted it’s not really obvious anymore with this “gay topic” making me SICK enough now, to take my leave, making no waves!

    Me, I chose to respect, and to keep, to APPLY and to LIVE God’s command, that is to love God… Peope, “Christians” claiming to know God but yet are not keeping His commands are liars, this is the “measure” of faith by Scriptures standards..

    Me, I chose to stand, and to plead for my God’s REVEALED WORD and EXPRESSED WILL, among wihich, in this particular situation and “blog”, I stand for God’s DESIGN for human sexuality and Marriage!

    Me, if I marry I will commit to serve and to worship a human person different from me; not a person that could be the image in the mirror, and not loving attributes I already possess as a man.

    Me, I would marry a partner potentially (and hopefully her and me would not be, or become sterile….) procreative with me, to CREATE with GOD, new human life,

    Me I would marry with an indvidual and living being of my human kind, not related by blood and of the opposite sex as God’s orders it, one woman I would take formy wife, who would be my wife, should I conduct sexual relations, enjoying sharing GOD BLESSED sexual intimacy, God’s GIFT meant EXCLUSIVELY for the committed heterosexual spouses, what is hartd to udnertand in that simple desifgn…?

    Sexual immorlaity means people acting against that gift, treasure of God, these people STEAL sexual intimacy outside of Godly Marriage for their selfish gain, I am not shy and not afraid to state this clearly…

    What others do is their freedom, but that interfere with me or my God’s order, they will find me.

    My last note to Moanti, persoanlly,

    ◄ Matthew 5:19 ►

    New American Standard Bible

    “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    I revise my opinion of you, and I am sorry… I must call you “least” in the Kingdom of Heaven acording to your online behaviour, unless you revise your opinion of attacking God’s standard for sexuality and Marriage in “blog” articles…

    You are not a secular lesbian, you are a lesbian Christian, yes.

    And my sister in Christ. Yes.

    I am holding no grudge, and really pray you do not suffer hard feelings because of my wordsa dn opinion, Moanti, but if you focus on my message objectively, , not subjectively on “me”, the “messenger”, you will know…

    What I stand for…?

    http://www.pureintimacy.org/a/answering-pro-gay-revisionist-theology-talking-points/

    But this one “debate” is done with me, My wish and my will now is clearly to take my leave from your blog and this “gay topic” with no regrets, not looking back. I make no waves.

    I announce the Gospel here…

    Farewell, and take best care, the whole of us…..

    God saves believers through their faith in following Christ,
    Answering to their call to HOLINESS..

    Amen.

  68. Gary says:

    Oh, now I think I know who you are.

    “I use pseudonyms, Anthony is my brother name, Christian57 is my faith with my department number, I participated to this blog, about one year ago day for day….”

    You must be Xavier. That makes the motivation for everything you say perfectly clear.

    • X..... says:

      Hello Gary.

      Yes, I am.

      I assume, you assume I am motivated by… “Homophobia” ..?

      ◄ Matthew 10:28 ►

      New Living Translation
      “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

      I fear not “homosexualiy”, it is an evil I am hating, my God is commanding me to.

      I “fear” consequences for me should I fall into this, and for people eventually trapped in the addiction of the practice of homosexuality, driven by my “love”‘, my affectionate care.

      For the last time, the motivation driving me is clear and pure, my care for Moanti and others well being with GOD, with no hidden goal or motivation, I not stop to say it…

      You can “judge” me with your prejudice to give yourself a false sense of superiority and “good conscience” that I am “just another evil homophobe”, and you can also spend your time aknoweldging the GOOD I have been doing on this blog the last few weeks….

      My comments a(e posted here :

      https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/is-homosexuality-a-sin-in-romans-1/

      And here, mostly :

      https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/biological-evidence-that-proves-gay-and-lesbian-sex-is-not-unnatural/

      Do I “fear” homosexuality, or “homosexuals”…?

      I hate the first ungodly behavior, and “love” the others, fellow human people, sinners.

      You think what you want, but I warn you ftiendly, don’t you dare call into question my motuvation in my presence against my actual “work” here, and “label” me a “homophobe”, dismissing my message, I would hold you accountable for it.

      ◄ Mark 3:28-30 ►

      “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30).”

      The Holy Spirit of my GOD drove me here, and CONSTITUTES my GOOD motivation.

      Not this “unclean spirit” of man-made “homophobia”, insecurity of “homosexuality” (I securely hate it by my God’s command) and hatred of “gay people” (I honestly and whole-heartedly “love” them, fellow sinners), you seem to “judge” is “driving” me…

      But don’t you dare express your wrong opinion of me to my knoweldge, if you hold one,

      I warn you friendly.

      Regards.

  69. John R says:

    Hello,

    I like that your research is well written and well-informed. I was thinking about this topic while driving the other day and I had some thoughts on the matter that I haven’t heard voiced before.

    First, I hesitate to name anything sinful that appears to be condemned in the New Testament if it isn’t explicitly stated as sinful in the Old Testament. This is because God does not change, and He already gave a law condemning sin to Moses. Did He add laws after Jesus came around? No, He actually replaced the law of sin, so if it is hard to prove as sinful in the Old Testament, it should be exceedingly hard to prove as sinful in the New. Therefore, premarital sex, as is defined today, I have a hard time proving as inherently sinful because it relies heavily on NT writings and an unverified definition of fornication/porneia. After all, what’s the difference between someone who commits to a marriage outside of a wedding ceremony and one who does?

    Anyway, I noticed that in the Old Testament, there are really only two verses that possibly condemn homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Both of them are unusual in the list of sexual sins because they add a clarifier: “as with a woman” or “in the beds of a woman.” The fact that they needed a clarifier in the first place should tell us that they weren’t talking about all “man with man” sex. None of the other sex laws need that clarifier. Bestiality doesn’t say “a woman who lies with a beast, as with a man.” Etc.

    So, what could this mean? If there WAS only a certain type of homosexual sex that was forbidden, then how could the Israelites tell them apart to punish the wrongdoers and leave the innocent untouched? Then it hit me: What is the function of heterosexual sex? The woman conceives and bears children. If a man has sex with a man in order to create children, wouldn’t this be an unnatural function of sex and possibly cultic in nature? And perhaps they could tell if they were trying to do some sort of fertility ritual if the two men were having sex in a woman’s bed! That could have been a commonly known fertility ritual that would have been an easy identifier for cultic homosexual practices. So perhaps the verse was intentionally ambiguous, as this interpretation would mean that a man lies with a man both as with a woman AND in the beds of a woman.

    There may have been much the same fertility practices in the New Testament as well. Since basically no one does such a thing anymore, is it possible that idolatrous homosexuality is basically gone?

    What do you think about this? It is a specific application of the idolatry argument for homosexuality.

    • Christian57 says:

      Hello, John. R.

      Please allow me to ask you…

      ◄ 1 Corinthians 5:1 ►

      New Living Translation
      “I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you–something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother.”

      Strange….

      Paul does not consider, he do not ask whether these two people were “in love” before passing judgment on this relationship standing with God’s sexual immorality standards….

      More importantly, Paul does not consider, do not care, do not ask were these two persons “performing” in the “Temple”, involved in ritual, “idolatrous” incestuous sexual activity…

      According to your opinion, since this is the kind of “homosexuality” adressed in Leviticus, it is only fair to give the same treatment, to apply your logic to the other sexual activities prohibited in the exact same context, in nearby Biblical verses.

      Right….?

      Adulterous sex, various forms of incectuous sex, homosexual sex and bestiality sex.for the record, were all Canaanites ritual practices prohibited by god for His People in the OT and can not happen anymore in our time, ritual sex taken off the map….

      All of these “idolatrous” sexual activities mentioned in the context of Leviticus are now OK with God then, according to your argument…….?

      I chose this one fitting example since Paul in the New Testament condemns this one incestuous relation as sinful, according to the Old Testement Law found in Leviticus….

      I am really interested in your answer, your reasoning applied here…
      Please share again your thoughts your informed opinion.. ?

      Regards.

      • A says:

        Well when you think about it’s been made clear God wanted us to marry humans and sleep with humans. Not only that but time after time when toevah has not been used also has addressed bestiality. Also look at Adam and Eve and other places where it takes about marriage never once do they say anything about animals clearly showing we should only be married to humans. Another thing even in Paul clearly uses people not animals

      • John R says:

        Hello Christian57,

        I have heard this argument before. It should be noted, first, that as you have apparently “put the nail in the coffin” on this issue and so clearly made your case, that I don’t see why you’d be interested in hearing what I have to say. No one can learn the truth without first turning away from their previous beliefs. Therefore, when debating what viewpoint is correct on an issue, both sides must argue their case, yes, but do so while acknowledging that they could be wrong. Otherwise, debate is pointless.

        First, you missed the key factor that makes the homosexuality verses stand out from the rest: the homosexuality verses have a clarifier. “As with a woman/in the beds of a woman.” None of the other sexual laws have any sort of clarifier like this one on the sexual activity, so it would make sense to assume that they apply in every situation. Incest is wrongful in every situation, whether the couple loves each other or not. Why? Because God wants us to produce healthy, genetically varied children and to delineate family history without confusion.

        Let us assume that we don’t know whether homosexual OR heterosexual sex is inherently sinful. Because of the clarifier on the “man with man” verses, a clarifier that is no where else in the sexual sins list, we could potentially assume that it is speaking not on all homosexual sex, but a specific type of homosexual sex. We at least know for sure that not all homosexual sex is good.

        This is much like the case with heterosexual unions. We see that it is not inherently wrongful to have heterosexual sex, but it can be harmful if done outside of a marriage. There are specific passages that condemn specific acts of sex, like adultery. To use your logic, we should look at all adultery laws and assume that they apply to all heterosexual sex laws, including marriage laws. This is obviously taking your logic to the extreme, but we can see that it is not always necessary to so broadly apply the reasoning behind one specific sexual law to all sexual laws because some are specific to certain circumstances. In other words, any time we see a clarifier on a sexual law, we could more safely assume that it is speaking on a specific wrongful scenario, such as adultery, and we should ban the act in question (heterosexual sex) only in the circumstances specified in the law. Any time we see a blanket ban on a practice, such as idolatry, we should ban it no matter what the circumstances are. (Even idolatry could be stated as being a specific condemnation of an inherently good thing: worship of a god)

        So hopefully you see that the Bible is not without precedent for banning certain acts all the time and others only under certain circumstances. This brings us back to this: are the “man with man” laws banning all homosexual sex no matter the circumstances, or just homosexual sex that is “as with a woman/in the beds of a woman”?

        Paul seems to condone the idea that only certain kinds of homosexual sex was disallowed with his wording in Romans 1. First, in context he is condemning those who are idol worshippers, and says that not only are their sexual passions reversed, but that they are also characterized by having every kind of wickedness, greed, envy, etc. That doesn’t sound like every single homosexual I know. Most of the ones I know claim to be Christians and do many good works. As they are worshipping the one true God, God as not given them up to vile passions due to idolatry, and thus greed, envy, and wickedness are not present in their lives.

        http://bible.com/111/rom.1.26-27.niv Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

        First: the difference in wording between the condemnation of women and the condemnation of men is to be noted, as Paul was very careful with his letters. Why not just say that women burned in passion with other women? No, Paul says specifically that they had unnatural relations and that they have up the natural “function” of sex (in some translations). What is generally assumed is that this verse is speaking on lesbian sex, but it could just as easily be talking about bestiality (which would have been common then in idolatrous practices). The function of sex with a man is to conceive, so bestiality would more readily fit the description of giving up the natural function of sex and replacing it with trying to conceive with bestiality. With the Greek/Roman view, the woman was merely a carrier of the seed of a male, and the seed was the sole agent in creating life. They would not have tried to become impregnated by lesbian sex, so bestiality is definitely a better fit for what this verse is condemning. This is worse, in my opinion.

        Then when we switch to men, they also gave up the “function” of sex with women and started trying to fulfill this function with men, doing shameful acts. Could it be another reference to “men with men, as with a woman?” The wording is pretty similar, and it is within the realm of plausibility that, in the Greco-Roman world view, one could certainly cause conception with homosexual sex, since only the male seed was necessary in their view. There was a story of Zeus in which he simply strapped his semen to his leg and it grew into a child. Could it be that some areas tried to replicate this practice?

        One more thing: homosexual opponents are quick to say that though the Bible (at least in the Old Testament) does not specifically ban female homosexual sex, it was understood that any ban on male homosexual sex was a duality law: a law that covered men and women tacitly.

        Under that logic, it could equally as well be stated that any law regarding heterosexual marriage and sex was tacitly understood to apply to homosexual marriage and sex, meaning that homosexual marriage was not only possible, but sanctioned by God. After all, we can just replace “man” and “husband” with “woman” and “wife” wherever we want to! Why only apply the logic to the verses you want to use to condemn homosexuality? Why not apply it to every verse that states anything about men? How do you choose which laws were duality laws and which weren’t (aside from the obvious ones like menstruation laws)? I see it as far more likely that female homosexual sex wasn’t condemned explicitly because the Hebrews didn’t think it was sinful back then. After all, even if Solomon had sex 3 times a day, with his thousand wives and concubines, each one would only have sex with him once every year. Statistically, at least some of them would have been lesbians and bisexuals, so is it without plausibility that some of those wives fulfilled their sexual needs with each other when Solomon wasn’t around? Female sexuality is typically more fluid than men’s, so much like within the women’s prison system, it is entirely plausible that many would have “converted” to bisexuality.

        I am interested to hear your response, as well as the author’s response.

      • Dear John,
        Just a quick note to you that I had not seen this comment that you wrote before responding to your other. I actually find it ironic that some of what I wrote could potentially be seen as apposing what you said (specifically one should not make assumptions on duality in Leviticus), but what you just explained also makes much sense, that if we can apply assumed duality to both genders to Leviticus than we should be able to apply it to all, including marriage. I find it ironic because both arguments differ and could even be seen as opposite, yet they both support the notion that Leviticus is not simply referring to all homosexuality. So I guess it just further demonstrates that there are MANY differing ways to support this same argument. Very interesting. Thanks again for your comments.
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Christian57 says:

        Hi, John R.

        I had typed a long comment adressing yours point by point, but I lost it due to a browser failure…

        Also many, many of my comments are not yet published, that could have totally change your approach of my comment to you..

        You too should know, I am not a newcomer to this “issue”, and you can not imagine my sincere committment to study this subject objectively, over the last few years…

        Now, I am not willing to bother again in a “debate”, I have been there, done that.

        Anyway, my “stance” is that of the conservative Christianity, so what new can I say….

        I know the Biblical truth on the matter of “homosexuality”, according to Scriptures writings and historical, traditional understanding and teachings on this. this practice is a sexual sin among other ones, nothing less, nothing more.

        Homosexual sex is a sin, homophobia in unjustly mistreating this modern, social group called “homosexuals” is as sin, and attempting to legitimate homosexuality within Christiantiy is also a sin, the worst of the three as far as I am concerned…

        I pray for you to not engage in any of them… The third in particular, I am grieved you are on your way there, as it may well be the unforgivable sin, to call the good of God’s laws evil, attempting to change them for selfish gain, or misplaced “compassion” for your “gay friends” you seem to prioritize over the Truth of God, their well being with GOD….

        You can wait the author of this blog dialogue with you.

        Regards.

      • Christian57, I apologize for any delay on processing your comments. I am not purposefully holding back any of your comments. WordPress seems to allow some automatically without moderation, and randomly withholds others. I don’t know what measure they use for this. When I get an email (it for some reason sends it to me in double or triplicate which makes it more confusing and easy to miss differing comments), it doesn’t always specify if it’s in need of approval or has been approved automatically, and you have sent through so many comments in the last day. Please understand that I need much prayer, as I am suffering from a horrible tooth infection and am in horrific pain. You are already aware of my other serious chronic pain issues, so please understand that this has been unbearable for me to handle at the moment. However, I will still manually approve your comments later today after I go to the doctor, as it took me 5 minutes just to get to this screen to send this to you and froze up twice…. Again I’m genuinely sorry and this has not at all been done purposely. (I’ve only purposefully withheld 1 comment in all my time with this blog, and that was due to it being sexually inappropriate, not from you obviously.)

      • Christian57 says:

        Hello, Moanti,

        I certainly know it is not your will to withhold my messages, naturally. The system of your blog publish some and not others of my comments, for some reason, I noticed…

        Thank you for your message, and for publishing them, today,

        I still wait the right frame of mind for me to watch the movie of the “New World Order Bible Versions” and discuss it with you, someday soon.

        You have all my support, faithful prayers in your trial, I wish you a prompt re-etablishment of your health, well being,

        I am sorry you endure so much, toothpain is terrible, I know… 😦

        Take best care of yourself,
        Your brother in Christ.

      • Thanks for understanding… I was able to get onto a family members’ Tablet with a WordPress app and published all of your pending comments. I didn’t even realize there were that many! The app actually listed between pending comments and approved comments, so for once this made things simple! Unfortunately my outdated phone crashes the WordPress App, so this was a rare luxury. Again I apologize for the delay. I would like to write more, but I will have to wait. I saw my doctor earlier, but then had to go to an emergency dentist and unfortunately I am in need of an expensive root canal. As suspected, my tooth is badly infected and I can’t get the treatment done for another week until the antibiotics kick in. Prayers for a miracle of less pain are greatly appreciated, as this is some of the worst pain I’ve felt in my entire life, and I am no stranger to pain as you know… Also please pray that I can sleep tonight, as I haven’t slept in 2 days now because of the pain which seems to be even worse when I lay down. Not fun. :,( I look forward to talking to you again soon and discussing the film. Thanks again!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        P.S. I will say one thing regarding the gay topic in some of your comments. I know that Angela has mentioned the use of Toebah and its connections to idolatry. Also as she mentioned, it is first used in the context of it being a Toebah against the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews. So Egyptians called the Hebrews an abomination, and we know that this doesn’t mean that Hebrews were an abomination to all. So we must at least see some cultural customary ties to this word in its contexts. The conclusion of Leviticus 18 shows not to do all of the abominable customs that the Canaanites did before them, so we can see custom ties directly into this word and must not forget that the Hebrews were purposefully instructed to set themselves apart as different as to be recognized as Hebrews. Some of these customs they were instructed to do were quite out of the ordinary to anything we are instructed to do today. But even if you were to fully disprove the word Toebah being not always tied to idolatry specifically, you must understand that this was not the primary basis of argument to question the meaning of Leviticus 18:22/20:13. It is but one of many observations that point towards a different meaning of the passages. So until all can be undoubtably disproved, there is not yet “a death” to the possibility. I express some of these additional observations in my comment to John R, one of which also expands on Angela’s other comment in regards to Deuteronomy. Okay, so now my “p.s.” is longer than my original text. Haha! I shall go for now. You are also in my prayers.

      • Christian57 says:

        Hi Moanti,

        Your blog is a mess for me to find the correct “reply” button, I never know where my comment is going to end, on the flow of a page…. :/

        I pray “hard” for your recovery, and our God to give you wisdom in how you will manage to go through your tooth ache, and its cost… >.< 😦

        The infamous "gay topic" we are fighting over, or more clearly the compatiblity of "homosexuality" and Christianity, I benefit from the objectivity.you can not enjoy (this is not a personal blame!!) because I am an "outsider" of the debate, a "heterosexual" and you are self-identifying as "homosexual", as a "lesbian".

        I have no personal interest, no gain to get, in being "right" in this, "homosexual debate"…

        I may come out as heartless but in this debate, I care for the Biblical TRUTH before I care for "people"…

        This come from my understanding, and applying of the two requests of our LORD…

        In this debate I always consider the ACTION SEPARATELY from WHO performs, and away from WHY one commits it, as God judges imparttially, I judge the homosexual ACT ONLY.

        What about "curious heterosexuals in a phase", or "bisexuals" engaging in homosexual behavior….? The sin is the same for all, in the same way the Law of our God is the same for all, Moanti no matter who and why commits it…

        Certain people perceiving homosexual desires and embracing them as a part of their IDENTITY is their choice in the end, this "condition" never grant them the RIGHT to sin should they be professing Christians, this is my POINT with you… -_-

        I hate "man-made" labels… "Homosexual people", I do not recognize, do not aknowledge the existence of different "sexual orientations"… I see men and women ONLY as I KNOW God does… Such contemporary psychological and social notions and concepts forced BY POLITICAL MANIPULATIONS on the most personal and intimate, touchy subject of "sexuality" and sensibility, "gender identity" are more often than not outright evil with political lobbies involved and as far I am concerned personally, they ARE NOT BIBLICAL and because of their foreign origin, have nothing to do in my reading and understanding of my God's written, revealed Truth…

        Not "for argument sake", I care for GOD and for CHRIST sake only, I am not playing with important things…

        My interest in the "gay topic" always has been seeking the Biblical Truth, I find the conservative position is the correct one because supported by ALL historical evidence coming together in harmony from the OT Leviticus prohibitions to the very last nail in the coffin of this "gay topic", the NT word "arsenokoitai".

        I read this article, some time ago :

        http://www.johnpiippo.com/2011/12/arsenokoitais-in-1-timothy-110-et-al.html

        What can you argue to this Moanti, I am not even curious to ask, you would find ways…

        I find you are discussing with our friend John R, congratulating his "idea" about the "duality law" possibly applying to HOLY MARRIAGE in favor of "homosexual couples" ..

        I am offended beyong words, Moanti by your consideration for this…

        I remind you politely it is "eisegesis" and an obviously wrong approach to apply (subjectivity) outside, foreign concepts in your reading and understanding of Holy Scriptures, acting with your mind set on considering "things" such as "homosexual" and "heterosexual" orientaiton where they are and can not be, because the texts are ANCIENTS and HOLY, REVEALED by our GOD for our INSTRUCTION and OUR SALVATION…, Worst, using the Bible in favor of this socially created group of persons you belong to, for your personal gain against the common good of our common Christianity, Moanti… This is terrible.

        I am done "scolding" you however, and leave you to your own "business", decisions….

        I am sad and hopeless to help you, I know you are going to continue like I am just a random "naysayer", then so be it….

        I pray for you, your well being with our GOD and will try to always be friendly to you, with you like I am and commit trying to be toward, for, with all people impartially, I value kindness and respect the most!

        Gently but firmlly sharing Christian Compassion and Biblical Truth, this is all I really care, and stand for…

        Take care of yourself, Moanti my friend, and sister in Christ…
        I feel I act more like a caring, loving FATHER with you than a "brother" in Christ,

      • Hi Christian57,
        Thank you for your prayers for my tooth. I appreciate it very much. Thank you also for your care for me. I am always open to looking at new perspectives in light of considering old ones. My “praise” of John’s idea of duality was that it shows that there are more than one, two, three plus ways to look at this topic that sheds new light on it’s possible meaning. This is just another that demonstrates this, and an interesting one that I had not considered. Again, none of these observations offer absolute proof of either side, but rather are observations that show that there are differing angles to look at this and it is not so cut and dry or black and white as people conceive. People have differing convictions on this topic and they all should be fairly considered before making a final judgment. Had there been no possible alternate way of looking at these Scriptures, then I would say for sure that they are what they appear. But there’s just too much other cultural, linguistic and contextual evidence to fully disregard it.

        Thank you for the link you provided. I liked how the author said one should go to the original Hebrew and Greek language to derive the true meaning of a word in Scripture, not just rely on differing English (or other language) translations. He also openly admits that Bible scholars aren’t completely sure on the meaning of arsenokoites. As you mentioned, I could argue some of his points, moreso his approach, but I won’t. Instead I will spare you of this and just be candid with my experience.

        Please remember that I held your same beliefs for the majority of my life and was not even aware of an alternate perspective until I was led to research it in one of the most hopeless times of my life when I was near to ending my life over feeling so lost and condemned. I was extremely apprehensive to what I had learned, and that is why I researched it for myself and even looked to DISPROVE the alternate perspective, rather than just relying on others to say what it said and accepting it blindly. I honestly didn’t expect for it to be a possibility that these claims could actually be true in Scripture. Granted, some of it I feel I disproved, and other were “a stretch” just as some of the ultra-modern traditional teachings on it are a stretch, so I reject those. [Note important examples of both in a later paragraph.] I was shocked when I found much of what was linguistically claimed to be valid, in the sense that one could genuinely perceive it through a different lens when looking at the original language definitions and full context. It’s like one of those drawings where you can see 2 things simultaneously, but some people can only see one thing. Kind of like this: https://pando-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2013/10/janus_feminin.jpg Anyway, I asked God to show me what He wanted me to do and if I was permitted to be with a female partner or not, and through the years I just kept finding more and more things within Scripture that supported the alternative perspective, sometimes without me even looking for them, and we know that “God cannot tempt us” (James 1:13.) I just kept being led to verse after verse that confirmed His love, grace, and blessing.

        Not only did finding these things strengthen my walk with God, but it gave me a deeper hunger to read His Word as a whole and look at contexts of many passages which has led me to uncover things I had never previously seen, even though I had read them many times before. The Bible came alive in new ways for me and I am convinced without a shadow of a doubt that God shows us His plan for Christ as our sacrifice and redemption and His plan for humanity even in obscure verses that many Christians view as irrelevant in modern application today. Even the rituals within the Old Testament Levitical Feast days reflect His sacrifice, burial, resurrection, and coming to rule again. It is all “encoded” within each Biblical story and we can see a reflection of Him and the plan of God for humanity is revealed! So the spiritual fruit of this for me has been immeasurable and I continue to study His Word and pray for discernment to walk in a way that pleases Him and be used by Him to accomplish His Will and purpose. This is of upmost importance to me. I felt called to help those who felt rejected by The Lord see His love for them. My heart longs for Him to return and I am expectantly waiting for Him with great anticipation!

        Considering all of this interaction, the most woeful thing to me that you have said several times is that my Bible studies into this may be the unforgivable sin; that striving to find original meaning that may offer a more specific usage of these words in these passages and sharing these Scriptures with others is not only a sin, but the unforgivable one of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. You seemed to retract this once, but then mentioned it again in the comment to John, that it might be the unforgivable sin. I feel that using Isaiah 5:20 as a support for Matthew 12:31 is misleading. In Matthew 12:31, the Pharisees claimed that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. They were claiming that Jesus was using the power of Satan to perform His miracles rather than by the power of the Holy Spirit from God. I am a Christian and believe that Jesus worked His miracles by the power of God through the Holy Spirit. To generalize this unforgivable sin as “calling evil good and good evil” is just too generalized and would make most people at risk for eternal damnation, even by accident. On a lighter example, we can see many early Christians in Scripture who felt that they were still bound to dietary laws under the Old Covenant and condemned those who ate outside of this as practicing an evil act. Yet those Christians who did not practice previous restrictions saw all food as good and a gift from God, even foods which were previously called an abomination in Holy Scripture. But a more serious circumstance would be someone like Paul, when He was known as Saul, not only condemning Christianity as evil, but having Christians murdered for their beliefs. Yet God forgave him for this drastic thing and used him to author the majority of the New Testament! So was not Paul guilty of calling something good as evil by condemning Christian’s belief in Jesus and guilty of calling something evil as good by believing that he was doing the work of God by killing them? If this doesn’t fit an example of Isaiah 5:20, than I don’t know what else does. My point is that in the general sense, yes, the Pharisees were calling something good as evil, but the deeper point was that they were specifically condemning Jesus as working by the power of Satan, and no Christian believes that Jesus performed His miracles by the power of Satan. If one believes this, then they are not only unforgivable, but couldn’t be conceived as a Christian because this goes against ALL of Christianity that Jesus was sent as the only begotten Son of God to accomplish the work of salvation. Christians could never believe that Satan sent Jesus to deceive people or they would not be Christians.

        Sadly, there is a Lucifarian doctrine that tries to support this, but these people who believe that “Lucifer is the true god that enlightened humans” in Genesis and “set them free from a God who entrapped them” are NOT Christians. Just as the angels who followed Lucifer fell from Heaven and remain unforgiven, people who claim Lucifer was the power working through Jesus will be unforgiven. Likewise, those who commit to the anti-Christ as the true power who is actually Satan incarnate, will be unforgiven.

        On the other hand, we know that Christians can be deceived by false teachings in different ways. We are told that we can discern between false teachings and teachings that bring salvation by their fruits. So when I see Christians using a teaching that condemns people of something they didn’t choose and cannot change which results in them to either rejecting God or losing hope in their own Salvation, this to me looks like some bad fruit. Does it not?

        So at the very least, the approach towards witnessing to gay people should be different in the church so that the lost can be brought to salvation and good fruit can be produced! It should also be noted that anything done in ignorance is not counted by God as sin, so those who have no or little knowledge of these things are innocently working only upon what they have been taught and doing what they feel individually convicted to do as inherent heterosexuals. So I do NOT personally consider anyone who condemns homosexuality as a whole as a “guilty Christian” or “working through the powers of Satan,” but would rather just lovingly encourage them to have more compassion, love and seeking of understanding so that more gays can be receptive to the Gospel message and be saved. We need to magnify that we are not made righteous by our own works, but the work of Him on the cross and all can be sanctified and justified through faith in Him by His grace!

        But despite my defense of this, I have to admit that when you say this to me, it deeply troubles me, and if I were to give into such a belief (that my studies and conclusions are equivalent to the unforgivable sin), than I would be without hope and unforgivable and mine as well never had been born. So please stop saying such a thing, as this causes me great distress, as I’m sure it would to any Christian accused of the literal worst thing possible. It brings me no good thing to try to convince me or even imply that I might be damned without forgiveness. Would God have even sent you here to minister to me if that were truly the case?

        So here’s the “later paragraph” I mentioned before. As I said, some of the teachings on both sides are a stretch. Like Ruth and Naomi… I don’t think that shows a lesbian relationship as some would say. David and Jonathan have much more evidence, especially that “he loved him more than the love of women,” but I’m still not totally convinced. I’ve also heard people try to say that the men of Sodom wanted to “know” the angels literally, like get aquatinted with them… That and many other things I see as “stretching it” and some ideas are downright silly. But then as I said, the ultra-modern conservative view is now taking verses that were never even contested as being about gays and making it against homosexuality. The most recent example is a pastor that I follow on YouTube that said something so random last Sunday. He said that the rider of the white horse (from the 4 horsemen) in Revelation was connected to homosexuality. Here is the verse: Revelation 6:2-“And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer.” He concluded that the “bow” was not a weapon, but a rainbow, which represents the rainbow flag which represents gays, and he “came out” conquering and to conquer (to get the right to marry apparently), so therefore gay marriage is the starting sign of the apocalypse. He also said that his “supporting evidence” is that the rainbow flag has 6 colors which is “the number of man” and it’s mocking the 7 color rainbow in nature by God, and that sometimes people can’t see the 7th color in nature, so it shows that “gays can’t see God,” which proves that being gay and gay marriage is a sin…. Things like this just further alienate gays from the church and is literally pushing them away from salvation, so it’s just beyond sad!!! Also a newer thing that I’ve seen a lot recently is Christians using Matthew 24:38-39 and Luke 17:26-30 against gays, saying that when Jesus said the day of His coming would be like “in the days of Noah and Lot” that the phrase “marrying and giving in marriage” means that they were performing both heterosexual and homosexual marriage in that time. They lose all sight of the context and focus in on thinking gay marriage is an end times sign and was the reason for both the flood and destruction of Sodom. But if the phrase “marrying and giving in marriage” is really a distinction between straight and gay marriage, then we must also conclude that “marry” and “giving in marriage” is also referencing straight and gay marriage in Matthew 22:30 which reads: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” In context, Jesus is speaking about believers that will be in Heaven. So if this distinction is what He was talking about in all of the verses listed, then one must conclude that both straight and gay marriage is recognized by God in our earthly time, since He mentions this about those who will be in Heaven (not hell.) Please note that I’m using their line of thinking to clearly show that their conclusions are flawed, in that they are using it to condemn gay marriage yet it can also be used to support it if the phrase means what they conclude. But I cannot take credit for this. It must be known that the phrase “they were marrying and giving in marriage” was given to me in prayer the night before I watched this pastor’s sermon and I asked “Lord, what does it mean?” The Lord immediately reminded me of Matthew 22:30, so He made this clear in prayer to me beforehand. So upon the next day when the pastor used the first 2 verses in his sermon that had this phrase, it was a confirmation to me that using this phrase to condemn gay marriage is flawed. When one reads these 2 verses (Matthew 24:38-39, Luke 17:26-30), the context is talking about how people were living out their day to day activities, including getting married, and did not see the coming destruction that was coming upon them and were taken by surprise! But instead, this is now a popular anti-gay verse and is driving more gays away in droves as they are now being blamed for the end of world civilization, both in our time and in the past! It was bad enough to be blamed for a few cities being destroyed, but now gays are being blamed for the reason for the flood and the end of the world?! So this major increase in bizarre anti-gay rhetoric makes me wonder if they are “grasping at straws” because they would rather hold onto their traditions.

        Along the same lines of false teachings, I respect Exodus International (the former largest ex-gay ministry in the world) for coming out and admitting that they had been deceiving for decades with false claims and admitted that no homosexuals actually transformed into heterosexuals as they had previously ministered to the world. Despite their admission of the truth, many Christian churches still promote that “Jesus will heal and deliver people from this sin.” But one would expect that healing would entail being transformed to love the opposite sex if this is the only God blessed union. So why hasn’t God healed this one thing even for His beloved followers who want so desperately to please Him? It’s very sad to me, Christian57. I really want to please God. So if it is a sin, than I can only rely on His grace to deliver me unto His salvation. I am hopeless without Him.
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Christian57 says:

        Hi…

        Moanti,

        You and me are friends all right, but our exchange on the question of the acceptability of same-sex sexual behavior within Christianity has reached a dead end.

        My last call to reason you back to our common doctrine as a fellow believer, it is either you submit to God’s word and will (the whole Bible is the written Word, Jesus is the living Word) revealing the homosexual behavior is one sexual immoral sin no greater or no worse than any other throughout Scriptures writings and teachings, or you are not a “real”, not a Bible believing and abiding Christian as far as I am concerned about you.

        You are free to decide…

        As far as your words are expressing your conviction, you chose apostasy.

        I am warning you friendly, for the very last time…. Period.

        John R.

        Hi, please allow me to first adress the concluding words of your long comment, that I otherwise disregard as a whole, because it is your discussion with Moanti …

        Can you prove “homosexuality” is “inborn”?

        You can not; no scientist came out with a “gay gene” over two decades of permanent studies to this day, so please do not entertain the fallacy of this myth.

        Even if a “gay gene” is found someday, would it justify anything in regards of God’s moral laws, because you know, human beings possess FREE WILL anyway, and there are already genetic causes found predisposing, if not determining a person’s “natural inclination” to potentially conduct detrimental behaviors, alcoholism, for instance…

        I stated this in one of my previous comment here a few weeks ago, well apparently it was a drop of clean, clear water in the ocean of mud found here, and was properly and conveniently ignored, it seem…

        Where are these ACTUAL victms of their genes, on a daily basis pushing them toward a sin that is also listed and defined by Paul as closing them “Heaven’s doors”, disqualifying them to the inheritance of the Kingdom of God and of Christ….?

        I want to know these people long, enduring struggles with their inherent desire to abuse alcohol despite their sincere Christian faith,…

        “I will briefly respond to Christian57 about a link he used to support his argument. He claims that the early church fathers unanimously condemned all homosexual acts, but from the quotes his chosen website used, I can see that it’s pretty obvious that condemning ALL homosexuality was a progressive trend, and not a unanimous condemnation as he states. Look at the first four quotes: until Tertulian of 220 AD, every quote limits its scope of condemnation to pedastery.”

        My answer is quoting a fellow Chrisitan more qualified than I am to respond :

        “Judaism from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. unanimously and unambiguously maintained the Levitical prohibitions against all forms of same-sex relations. Affirming writers point out that the only form of same-sex relations available to Jewish (and Christian) was pederasty—men having sex with teenage boys. And this is true except for the word “only.” Yes, Jewish writers often spoke out against pederasty (Josephus Ant. 1.200-201; Philo, Laws 3:37-42). But why? Was it just the age differential, and not the gender, that was the problem? Surely it was both. After all, Leviticus 18 and 20—the source of Jewish prohibition—doesn’t mention age or power differences. Plus, teenage girls were given in marriage to older men all the time, and the Jews saw no problem with this. The problem with pederasty was that it was both oppressive (in Roman culture more than Greek) and it crossed the Creator’s gender boundaries.

        In any case, pederasty wasn’t the only form of same-sex relations common in their day. Josephus speaks out against same-sex relations in the context of marriage laws (Apion 2.199), and several other Jewish writers prohibited homosexual relations without reference to age distinctions (Letter of Aristeas 152; Ps. Phoc. 3; b. Sanhedrin 58a, Sifra Ahare 9:8, and Sifra on Leviticus 18:3). Furthermore—and most importantly—pederasty didn’t exist among female same-sex relations, which were often consensual and non-exploitative. Still, Jewish and Christian authors unanimously prohibited female same-sex relations on the same grounds that they prohibited male same-sex relations.
        Consenuality, mutual love, commitment, and faithfulness were never thought to trump God’s design for sexual relations. Not until the late 20th century.”

        Source :

        Does the Bible prohibit same-sex sexual behavior (SSB)?

        (The answer is Yes, God does really says…)

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/04/the-sin-of-homosexuality/

        You, and any professing Christian should be well inspired to read this article very carefully, it does disprove the whole lot of Moanti’s “alternative perspective” and “pro-gay Theology” assertions in general, their wishful interpretations seeking to legitimize same-sex sexual behavior as God honoring and a valid Christian lifestyle…..

        I repeat myself and restate this, causing distress or not, this is dangerously close to committing the unforgivable sin, to seek this happening…

        The unforgivable sin is disbelief in God’s goodness to forgive and to save. I find it logic, people committed to demean and to devalue God’s moral teachings for selfish, personal gain or misplaced “compassion” are ultimately promoting evil, they do not believe in God’s goodness or they would NEVER DARE side with the enemy, opposing the good laws of our caring, loving God…

        Have a nice day…..

    • Hi there John,
      Thank you for your compliment and your comment and insights. I’m sorry for the delay in my response. I wrote to you a few days ago as a saved draft, but have been struggling with a terrible tooth ache and so I haven’t been able to keep my blog up to date. Thank you for your patience.

      I think what you have to say is quite interesting, as I had not noticed the lack of a qualifier in other verses. When we look to the original text, there is no comparative language of “as with” or “like as” a woman. The literal sentence reads: “against / male / not / “lie” (shakab) / bed (mishkab)/ female.” Knowing this, we can see that the comparison between a male acting like a female is absent, and the translators have taken the liberty to replace a noun (the word “bed”) for 2 prepositions (the phrase “as with” or “like as”). This should be a red flag to begin with, as this utterly changes the whole meaning and disregards the noun completely… Still, I think that your insights do further support the notion of an idolatrous sexual act with connecting it to the fertility ritual if it is speaking to 2 males in the bed of a female or wife. Obviously most gay males in general wouldn’t be having sex on a woman’s bed, so this specific language is quite curious.

      But this of course is just one other possible clue into it’s possible idolatrous pagan ritual connection. We also know that Leviticus 18:22 is exclusively surrounded by verses connected to sexual idol worship practices; first against sacrificing ones seed to Molech (verse 21), and then against bestiality (verses 23) which was also performed in idolatrous fertility rituals. So I think what you have said strengthens this possible interpretation.

      Another interesting observation is that the bestiality verse is worded in a way that covers both the male and the female lying with a beast: “And you (the male) shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.” Because of this, it would seem odd that if Leviticus 18:22 was against all homosexual sex, that there wouldn’t be a corresponding verse that read “likewise, a woman shall not lie with a female as she does with male.” We have the clarifier that a man should not lie with an animal and a woman should not lie with an animal… So one must ask, why would God ONLY condemn a man lying with a man but not also condemn a woman lying with a woman if homosexual sex was the true targeted sin? If the letter to the Romans was actually against lesbians as well, then we would have to assume that all people in Biblical history were not told of this until the time of Paul. Those who were under the Law took it very seriously down to the letter. Assumptions were not made out of nowhere as to add to the law. We know that when polygamy was an allowable practice, it was only reserved for the males to have multiple wives. Not the other way around (with a female with multiple husbands.) So it goes to show one cannot just assume one practice applies to all in regards to males and to females.

      If this is a prohibition against the male performing fertility rituals with another male, then we would then at least imagine that females should also not perform a pagan fertility ritual, assuming that one existed. Well, this does perfectly fit. If we want to look to a possible corresponding supportive passage, we can look to Deuteronomy, which appears to re-list every sexual prohibition that warrants the death penalty from Leviticus, yet it does not list Leviticus 18:22/20:13 in terms of sounding like gay sex. Inserted instead is Deuteronomy 23:17, “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute.” As we know, cult prostitutes were the intercessors of these idolatrous fertility rituals. So this appears to condemn both parties when taken as a whole and supports the theory that the homosexual acts of Leviticus were specific and reworded in Deuteronomy. Leviticus seems to mention what the act itself entailed and Deuteronomy just calls it what it is (if this is in fact what it is talking about.) It should also be noted that Deuteronomy was Moses’ last book before he died and provides a summary of all that was taught from the Law. The title of “cult prostitution” was not used in Leviticus, yet the sexual act was described without giving it a name. So it would seem that Deuteronomy 23:17 corresponds to the acts within Leviticus 18:22/20:13 when we look at the context of the law of Moses.

      As far as stating something as a sin that was previously not a sin listed in the Old Testament, I believe that although God has not changed, the given knowledge of His law for the people in specific times has changed or at least has been newly revealed in accordance to fulfilling His Will. Where we see this the most is in accordance to population needs. Obviously we know that incest was required to populate the earth in the beginning. Then again in the time of Noah, as there was no getting around crossing the bloodlines between brother and sister, half brother and sister, etc. Then God made a prohibition against incest when there were enough humans of varied bloodlines to populate the earth. (As a side note, it’s interesting that God did not reveal His law in writing until over 800 years after the flood.) Likewise, we see God blessing a man with many wives before the New Testament appears to promote only one wife. Again this seems tied to the need for a higher population in earlier times, and once this was met, the Biblical rules seemed to alter once again.

      There is also the apparent change in laws for divorce: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8,9). So apparently the unspoken and intended law of God was not to divorce from the beginning, but the spoken and written law of Moses said that one could divorce for any reason as long as there was a certificate of divorce. It seems that this shows that God’s plan was for there not to be divorce, but He permitted it based on the attitudes of the people. One might also see the tie-in with population again, in that men moving from wife to wife would spread their seed faster and among a varied genetic line. Interesting.

      But as far as sex before marriage not being mentioned in the Old Testament…. I found this verse: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.” (Exodus 22:16) So although this doesn’t overtly say “do not have sex before marriage,” it does show that when sex is performed, there comes with it an obligation to marry, as sex before the marriage covenant was not intended.

      But in regards to the word “porneia,” it’s context is lacking and difficult to fully pinpoint. But it seems to be associated with a sexual behavior outside of a monogamous commitment. It cannot be generalized to “premarital sex” between the couple who afterwards gets married (like that in Exodus) because then the context of Matthew 19:9 would read: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, (except for if you had sex together before marriage), and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8,9). How could having sex together before the marriage vow was made then make it somehow permissible to divorce that same person that you had already joined together with? It just doesn’t make sense.

      But the bigger question becomes, what is considered marriage in the eyes of God? A government legal contract or a mutual covenant between the couple and God? I would assert that a couple who commits and has sex (without a literal government marriage license) has a different moral intent compared to a person who is involved with empty promiscuity practices. With the latter, there is no promise and it is using sex for the pleasures of self indulgence and can likely hurt others, possibly physically and ultimately emotionally. So it seems to me that the intent behind the sexual union is what distinguishes it’s sinfulness or blessing. So any sex appears to be blessed within the confines of an enduring committed union, i.e. marriage covenant. However one might be able to make a case for sex before marriage if the couple ends up marrying, but not if the couple uses sex only for personal gratification and intends to move onto the next partner at a later time. But I say that with apprehension because I still think Exodus 22:16 shows that the virgin was seduced, or more accurately “enticed” by the man. The Hebrew word used is yə·p̄at·teh (יְפַתֶּ֣ה) which in all of it’s context seems to be defined as alluring by possibly deceptive trickery. Because of this, it would seem that the man did not have noble intentions in the first place to marry the woman, and as a penalty he must pay the bride price and marry her. So this is my take on these things. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your exposition!
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      • John R says:

        Hello again, Moanti,

        Thanks for the response. I hope your tooth gets better soon! I’ve heard tooth pains can be some of the worst you can go through, so you have my prayers for endurance for you. I will go through your response and give you my reply as if in conversation. But first, just a few thoughts: all sins are due to a natural sin nature inherent in all humans. All goodness is from God, and certain good things are inherently in human nature as well, such as having a conscience and the desire to love. So how do we determine which side homosexuality lies on?

        Without even using the Bible, I would want to say that it lies on the side of goodness, and this is why: all temptation, which leads to sin and so is this harmful, is not more than we can bear, yet homosexuals are born with this “temptation.” All attempts to rid homosexuals of their orientation through prayer and therapy have largely failed, which leads me to believe that it is a God-given inclination, and not Satan’s. What reason would God have for making a temptation impossible to remove, or even mitigate? I haven’t done a terrible amount of research, but I would wager that all other sins have positive proof that therapy can fix the person in question: alcoholism, gambling addictions, murders, drug abuse, violence, sexual addiction, stealing, adulterers… I would bet that the studies show that therapy works in these areas. So why doesn’t homosexuality conversion therapy work, or celibacy therapy? Even more, why doesn’t PRAYER seem to work? That alone should be alarming to all who condemn all homosexuality as sinful. To answer that question, most critics of homosexuality either say “no one is really praying hard enough” or “homosexuals must not really be saved Christians.” Both claims I personally find dubious. Even Jesus came under attack for his beliefs, and he said “if you do not believe my words, then believe my actions.” (John 10:34). His actions for goodness and charity spoke that he was of and for God, and I would say many homosexuals can say the same.

        Another thing that should be alarming is that the Bible never explicitly condemns pedastery, apparently! Even conservatives admit that the Bible never explicitly states that sex with children is wrongful. It is certainly possible that it was so obviously wrong that they didn’t need to comment on it, but this argument is dubious considering that the practice must have been common among the pagans, and it certainly was common of the Romans. However, if you view the verses normally condemning homosexuality as condemning man-child sex, that egregious exclusion of pedastery disappears. (It should be noted that God spoke on this subject within allegory in Ezekiel 16, noting that he did not “marry” Israel until she reached the “age of love,” which was years after puberty. We should hope that the Israelites follows God’s example and waited until at least puberty to marry off their children.)

        Now before I go through Moanti’s reply, I will briefly respond to Christian57 about a link he used to support his argument. He claims that the early church fathers unanimously condemned all homosexual acts, but from the quotes his chosen website used, I can see that it’s pretty obvious that condemning ALL homosexuality was a progressive trend, and not a unanimous condemnation as he states. Look at the first four quotes: until Tertulian of 220 AD, every quote limits its scope of condemnation to pedastery. They said the sin of it was that these boys were basically scarred for life and were even sold into prostitution! That is a more devastating sin, in my opinion, than consensual homosexuality, if it is sinful at all (Again, why would God focus on homosexuality so much and avoid pedastery, unless some of the “homosexuality” verses are actually pedastery verses?). Paul’s teachings, which are commonly used to condemn homosexuality, were surely in circulation before 220, so it is apparent that the “sin” of consensual homosexuality didn’t appear to bother these early church theologians until the 3rd century, which is plenty of time for attitudes towards and biases against homosexuality to appear. Just think of how fast racial discrimination is leaving America! If 3 or 4 generations can see the end of racial bias, how much quicker can the beginning of bias be? The fault of eisegesis could be with the theologians of the 3rd century. http://www.learntolove.co.za/index.php/the-bible-and-same-sex-attraction/what-were-the-early-teachings-on-homosexuality

        ——–
        ‘The literal sentence reads: “against / male / not / “lie” (shakab) / bed (mishkab)/ female.”’

        I had read that the original language read “you shall not lie with a man lyings woman.” This is why I assumed one could either add “as one” or “in the” before lyings, because those participles would have been understood in the Hebrew. Either way, one can easily see where, already believing that homosexuality is sinful, one could use eisegesis in translating these verses to read “as one lies.”

        ‘We know that when polygamy was an allowable practice, it was only reserved for the males to have multiple wives.’

        This is sightly off topic, but I thought it worth noting that, while monogamy certainly appears to be God’s ideal marriage scheme, this seems to only be because the less wives you have, the more time for God you have, hence the NT command that church leaders be “one wife” men. In fact, the best marriage plan, according to Paul, is being single and celibate! Polygamy is never stated as inherently sinful, and I think it’s worth noting that Rome’s culture was largely monogamous, and that when Rome’s national religion became Christianity, many Roman practices became “Christianized” and many Roman ideas became Christian ideas, and the dislike of polygamy is likely one of the results of that, perpetuated through the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the OT has multiple laws regarding polygamy and not one of them puts it in a negative light. In fact, most interpretations of 2 Samuel 12:8 admit that God, through the prophet Nathan, blatantly promotes polygamy, even though in Deut 17:17 the *king* is not supposed to take many wives: because they will *turn his heart away from the Lord*! Who does a king marry? Princesses of foreign countries, who likely practice idolatry. Polygamy is bad for a king not because having many wives is bad, but because they would tempt him to idolatry. Therefore, God’s condemnation of polygamy for kings is apparently not equivalent to condemning ALL polygamy as sinful (sound familiar?), or else when He later promotes polygamy, He is promoting sin, which is blasphemy to say so.

        There is also an argument that polygamy always ended badly for the Bible characters. I would argue that if you read carefully, it is rare that you find a story in which polygamy is the true cause of strife. Abraham: his sin was not having a wife and a concubine. They were doing fine, and Abraham is commended as a righteous person even while married to two women. His problem starts when he doesn’t trust God’s promise and tried to fulfill it through Hagar. His sin is lack of faith. David: He is commended as a man after God’s own heart. Apparently God’s own heart desires multiple women, because we don’t see a condemnation from the polygamy. No, the problem is when David commits adultery and murder. Solomon… His problem was sex addiction lol. 1000 wives and his heart was definitely led astray, as we see that he WAS led into idolatrous practices by his foreign wives, the clearest case of polygamy being the indirect cause of sin. But again, the problem wasn’t having 1000 wives, the problem was that he let them lead him into idolatry. Jacob: his problem wasn’t polygamy, but that he loved one wife more than the other, and one son more than the others. His sin was favoratism. And so on and so forth.

        Now, we say that God changed His stance on polygamy in the NT. I have yet to find considerable evidence of this fact, and much evidence that the Romans changed the views on polygamy. Furthermore, even Jesus/God is kinda stated as a spiritual polygamist. The Church is the singular Bride of singular Christ (monogamy), but we are plurally the members of the singular Church. Therefore, it could be said that we are the brides of Christ, spiritually (polygyny). Now I’m not saying polygamy is the best for a developed country or for women necessarily, but calling it sinful is a stretch. Many undeveloped countries still practice it, and not always in a patriarchal way: the women choose that lifestyle. (That was longer than I anticipated, sorry!)

        ‘There is also the apparent change in laws for divorce: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8,9).’

        Another interesting subject: The Word of God is certainly inspired by Him, but depending on your view of the Bible, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the exact words in the Bible, or even on the original manuscripts, are perfect and infallible. Scholars and the popular church view unanimously agree on the multiple authorship of the books of the Bible, but what scholars see is that there are multiple discrepancies between copies of the same text, meaning there have been additions and subtractions from the wording of the books of the Bible. They think that the scribes who would have copied the text felt no harm in correcting or substituting words, phrases, or entire chapters, so the original WRITERS did not believe in the inerrancy of the wording, as we believe today. Were the later scribes perfectly inspired to correct what was perfectly inspired in the first place? What that means is that God has inspired the TRUTHS within the Bible, but has allowed the wording to be changed. So what is Jesus doing when he states in Matthew that from the beginning, divorce was not allowed? Going back to before any living memory and to the beginning of time, when God instituted marriage. I believe Jesus isn’t just saying that divorce isn’t allowed, but that in God’s eyes, it is impossible! After all, how can one commit adultery against a spouse through remarriage if one isn’t still truly married in God’s eyes? God apparently doesn’t care what we think about marital states. It also means that Moses (possibly meaning the original scribes who wrote the end version of the Torah) possibly added the allowances for divorce at a later time, and not according to God’s will, or that God allowed Moses or the scribes to change it because of the hardness of their hearts. Therefore, God never actually gave any laws regarding divorce, and they were solely added by either Moses himself, or later scribes, as Jesus says. He never attributes the divorce laws to God. Radical, yes, but possible.

        ‘But as far as sex before marriage not being mentioned in the Old Testament…. I found this verse: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.” (Exodus 22:16)’

        Here’s where most of the church will scoff at my reasoning: I am well aware of this verse, and its sister verses in Deuteronomy 22. I agree with you in saying that the verse is saying that sex, or becoming one flesh, always comes with some kind of obligation, at least with two people eligible to marry. This obligation likely comes from God Himself. Otherwise, what reason would the Israelites have for marrying a rapist and his victim? But note carefully the wording of this verse (Deut is similar): “he will make her his wife.” Not “he shall marry her.” They are not saying the same things (though proponents of the premarital sex theory will say they are the same), because while the latter assumes that having sex did not place a marriage obligation onto the two, the prior view assume this obligation. Not only that, it makes an important distinction: he shall make her his wife, not his concubine. Both would have been common in this day, so this verse is actually vindictive for the woman. I submit this thought: the Israelites thought that all sex between eligible couples (a man and an unmarried woman) was equivalent to how we think of marriage vows today. This is why they married even rapists to their victims (also see the story of Jacob and Rachel: the ceremony was for Rachel, yet without having had sex, Jacob didn’t have a claim on her. Furthermore, Jacob was tricked into having sex with Leah, and considers her his wife, yet no recorded wedding ceremony or exchange of vows occurs… Indeed, why would Laban trick Jacob into having sex with Leah in the first place if sex wasn’t understood to have obligation attached to it?). However, rape was still an abominable thing, so while they honored the belief that sex, or becoming one flesh, made you married, they required that the man give the woman full legal status as a wife, and not a concubine. The belief that sex made you married must have been common, because while these verses talk about seducing the woman or raping her, none talk about consensual sex, so the writers of these books must have thought that consensual sex, and the ramifications, were so obvious that it didn’t need writing on. They would have married. The writers likely wrote on rape to clarify a social problem: do we have to marry even rapists? Yes, they said. Sex is marriage. (Note: I am not condoning rape, nor do I think that we should necessarily follow this law today. One should consider that these verses are speaking on rape by an Israelite: a man who otherwise is godly. Not a degenerate pagan. So marrying the woman to the rapist wouldn’t always be as bad as most rape today, as the man came from the same community. He has to pay a hefty fee and take care of her, so this probably isn’t some lazy non-working fellow either.)

        Also, it should be noted that these verses are not very good examples of premarital sex because they apply to both unmarried men AND married men, under the system of polygamy. Therefore, my statement that the Old Testament makes no true mention of premarital sex, as we understand it today (sex before marriage vows), is still true. Yes, sex before the approval of the families involved was seen as bad, but I would argue that the sin in the Israelites’ minds was not premarital sex, but theft of the dowry and theft of choice of suitor. Romeo and Juliet would have fared much better in this society, because they could’ve ended the feud just by having sex! Lol

        ‘But in regards to the word “porneia,” it’s context is lacking and difficult to fully pinpoint. But it seems to be associated with a sexual behavior outside of a monogamous commitment.’

        You bring up some good points! I would say it refers to heterosexual sex outside of marriage generally, not just monogamy. I say this because “homosexual” sex is always mentioned separately from porneia, and because many of the early Christians would have been polygamous, and I have already stated that I have yet to find God’s “changing His mind” on polygamy. Porneia is defined most simply as “surrendering Swedish purity”… Wait, no, autocorrect lol. ” surrendering sexual purity.” There we go! So, the question is, what exactly surrenders sexual purity? If your first thought is fornication, you are incorrect. Fornication is a translation of this word, not a clarification of it, so we can’t use that term when we define porneia. Similarly, sexual immorality is a translation of the term, and the one I prefer. If you look at older dictionaries, fornication once meant all sexual immorality (including incest and adultery), but today it has the narrow meaning of “sex between two unmarried people.” This is not what the King James writers meant by fornication, so sexual immorality is a far better translation today. This is much like how reading “queer” in Lord of the Rings to mean derogatorily homosexual is incorrect because of language development. Queer just meant strange.

        So if we can’t use fornication in the definition, how do we define porneia? Consider this: this word is never truly defined in the New Testament, so its meaning must have been perfectly clear to them and not needed clarification. The writers of the NT, when they talked about Scriptures, were speaking of the OT, so we can safely assume that they got their definition of porneia from there. Sure enough, there are PLENTY of sexual sin laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy to populate the list of sins encompassed within “surrendering sexual purity”: adultery, incest, bestiality, cult prostitution, possibly pedastery, possibly homosexuality, and possibly premarital sex. I say possibly to pedastery because, while it was likely condemned, it is never explicitly stated as such. Possibly to homosexuality because it is under contention (as we all know at this blog!) And possibly premarital sex because of the laws in Exodus and Deut previously mentioned. But we have already attacked the condemnation of homosexuality and found the arguments in need of more proof. I have attacked the verses supposedly condemning premarital sex and found them wanting. Therefore, I hesitate to put homosexuality and premarital sex (that is, sex before making marriage vows) onto the list of porneia. And we should all hesitate to add to that list without VERY good biblical reason to. Otherwise, I could easily add interracial sex to the list of porneia… I believe the church has done much of the same thing with premarital sex and homosexual sex. Ask anyone how they defined sexual immorality, and point to where in the Bible they got that definition from, and most will not have a good answer! The definitions, sadly, come mostly from tradition, which is what Protestantism is all about breaking away from!

        The biggest argument against premarital sex is this: if all sex outside of marriage is sinful, and sex doesn’t inherently make you married, then premarital sex is possible and sinful. Therefore, if I am to attack the premarital sex doctrine, I have the great task of defining marriage in God’s eyes, when marriage begins in God’s eyes, and whether premarital sex is explicitly or implicitly condemned in the Bible.

        I have already done the last of the three in the OT. In the NT, the only verses condemning premarital sex are ones including the word porneia, and as I am attacking definition, I am showing that no explicit condemnation exists in the NT either, if it is true that there are no verses anywhere else that condemn premarital sex. I cannot find them apart from Exodus 22 and Deut 22 and these more likely deal with improper marriages, rather than premarital sex.

        For defining marriage, I will simply do as Jesus did: turn to the first marriage. Gen 2:24. The leave, cleave, and become one flesh verse. When we think of marriage, we think vow, wedding, pastor presiding at wedding, lifelong love. What is interesting is that God doesn’t define it that way, and Jesus repeats that point in Matthew 19. God says the man leaves father and mother: this is so he can assume the headship of the new household, therefore the leaving refers to leaving the parents’ authority primarily, physical location secondarily. The cleaving: pretty obvious. He loves his wife and sticks to her for life, and vice versa. The one flesh: here’s where differences of definitions get tricky. Many conservatives will say becoming one flesh (literally one meat) means to become one in all that you do, spiritually and physically, including sex (Question them on where in the Bible it suggests this definition). However, they usually conveniently exclude Paul’s use of the term in 1 Cor 6:16, where he suggests that when one has sex with a prostitute, one becomes one body and therefore one flesh with her, because “it is written the two shall become one flesh.” In other words, the “mere” act of sex causes one to become one flesh (at least for heterosexuals), and this has enormous ramifications for how we define marriage and the point at which marriage begins, in God’s eyes. (Some will say that Paul wasn’t using one body as a synonym for one flesh, but a contradiction. However, when looking at the text, the transitional word “gar” is used between the one body statement and the one flesh quote, and is pretty unanimously used to denote the cause of something (for), rather than comparing something (but, yet, however). Therefore, it seems likely that Paul is equating one body with one flesh precisely BECAUSE he was trying to suggest that all sex makes you married, and that the audience of his letters used the phrase “one body” to “get off easy” when having sex with prostitutes).

        So then, to define marriage, I would say that, regardless of a public statement of vows, any and all who leave, cleave, and have sex are considered married in God’s eyes. This includes cohabiting couples with no intention to “marry” yet, as we understand the term. It appears that we have distorted the biblical view on marriage more than just a little. Furthermore, I would go even farther than this and say that premarital sex doesn’t exist because it is sex that denotes the point at which someone becomes married, not the statement of vows, and that it is ALL sex that causes marriage in God’s eyes, regardless of intent or even consent. That may seem terrible right now, but it is definitely more consistent with the picture of God we see in the OT (Exo 22, Deut 22). However, the God who allows divorce is faithful to forgive and merciful and understanding. The only reason He’d allow divorce is if He knew it would be better to separate than to stay with certain spouses. So although all sex makes you married, I believe God understands mistakes and mishaps and rape.

        Now I say all sex makes you married, regardless of intent or consent, largely based on the understanding of one flesh simply meaning heterosexual sex, and on Jesus’ statement on divorce, oddly enough. Matthew 19

        http://bible.com/107/mat.19.3-6.net Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female , and said, ‘ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh ’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

        When we read this with the understanding that one flesh just means sex, then what we see is that God joins the two into one flesh when they have sex. This seems logical, because sex causes conception, a process which God is largely in charge of and beyond human control. Moreover, while Jesus could have simply said “let those who are married, not separate,” he specifically cites the one flesh part of marriage as the reason to not separate.

        While this could apply only to those who are married and then become one flesh, that has the effect of saying that when you become one flesh outside of marriage, God doesn’t care if you separate or not. So let’s all just have one night stands and prostitute ourselves, woo hoo! No, I think most would say that God’s ideal plan for sex is that it happens within a committed relationship, so therefore, Jesus HAS to be speaking on ALL one flesh relationships, both within a willful, committed marriage and without.

        If all one flesh unions are not to separate ever, doesn’t this sound an awful lot like not divorcing your spouse ever? And the best way to not separate is to cleave to your one flesh partner in love and permanent union. Is that not a marriage requirement? And leaving your father and mother happens naturally as one ages. Likely, by the time you start having sex, you are well on your way to being independent of their authority, if not their money. So then, is it not fair to say that, at the least, becoming one flesh has a very serious and marriage-like obligation attached to it, whether you want that obligation or not? Because of this, I have concluded that sex is the defining moment of when a marriage starts, and that God, due to His unchanging nature and lack of regard of human ideas of marriage (see statements on divorce), considers ALL sex to make one married in His eyes, whether we think so or not.

        But you would say, marriage is a covenant! How can a covenant be entered into without both parties willfully agreeing to it through a vow? Good point! And this is the strongest argument against the idea that sex is marriage in God’s eyes. There are several references to “the wife of your covenant.” However, I have looked for statements that marriage is, in and of itself, a covenant, and what I have found is this: the Israelites, and indeed most cultures in that day, made covenants frequently as binding promises. This included marriage covenants. But not all marriages started with marriage covenants. Ideally, one would make a marriage covenant with the bride and the family at the betrothal, and because of this binding promise, you were called husband and wife at that point simply because covenants weren’t broken. You might as well start wearing the titles of marriage! This binding promise was referred to as the marriage covenant: simply, the promise to GET married at a future date. Not an initiation into an actual marriage. It’s like reserving a TV at a store: it’s “your” TV, but you don’t really own it until you buy it. As you see from the story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, though Jacob and Rachel had made a marriage covenant and could call each other husband and wife, and even went through their own wedding, Laban STILL had a claim on Rachel because the stipulations of the marriage covenant hadn’t been fulfilled yet: namely, that Jacob and Rachel would have sex. “Ownership,” for lack of a better word, happened at the point of sex, regardless of this marriage covenant, as we see with Jacob and Leah. It seems apparent that in Jewish custom, God was invoked or thought of as a witness to the marriage covenant, so that it was more binding (Malachi 2). Of course, God is a witness to everything, so this makes sense. However, culturally today, not many make such a marriage covenant at the betrothal stage, and instead engage in this covenant only on the wedding day. Marriage is more than a covenant: a covenant is just a strong promise with God involved. Marriage is an action, a follow-through of promise, a relationship that starts at sex and ends at death. Marriage could simply be stated as “the state of being one flesh.” This state is always intended to not be broken by separating or by committing adultery or any other sexual sin. I can engage in a marriage whether I promise to or not. In fact, Jesus says that oaths should be avoided! Lest we come under double the condemnation if we break that oath.

        Therefore, I hesitantly conclude that marriage is NOT a covenant in the sense as we think of it, but a relationship. The Israelites engaged in making marriage covenants, much like how we do prenups and state licenses, but I cannot find a statement where God states that marriage is a covenant, as entered into by vow, in and of itself. In fact, only a handful of verses regarding marriage say anything about a covenant at all. In a way, though, becoming one flesh is enough of a covenant without adding to it, because we are not to “separate” ever, so lifelong commitment, and we are to not commit adultery, so another commitment factor. There is also the command to be fruitful and multiply, so marriage is partly to fulfill that command, another commitment. But does one need to verbally agree to perform these duties in a vow? I can’t find evidence of that in the Bible. Furthermore, as I have stated in my study, God considers ALL one flesh partners to be married, so simply having sex does more for God than a vow ever can, apparently.

        To conclude that LONG section of my reply, porneia should not include premarital sex, because all sex makes you one flesh, which makes you married in God’s eyes, therefore premarital sex can’t exist. Our definition of fornication, at least biblically, is unsound as of today. Our definition of marriage is not the most pure form of what is in the Bible. Sex trumps vows, Biblically. And weddings and marriage licenses can no more make one married than a baptism alone can make one saved without the belief behind it. Radical, yes, but not without merit or precedent. As far as I can tell, however, it would appear that one flesh, and thus God’s view on marriage, is limited to heterosexual unions. But because I view marriage as more organic and based on the relationship, this doesn’t discredit those who are homosexual and living out a marriage relationship! Just that it would be a different category of relationship on a technical level, not a quality level.

        I’m done with that line of thought! Sorry for the wall of text. I hope you get through it. My last thought, back on topic, is that I didn’t think about looking for a duality if we take Lev 18:22 to mean cult prostitutes. Very cool find with the parallel in Deuteronomy! I haven’t heard that one before. Most scholars would say that, due to Deuteronomy’s near identical law passages and expansion of wording, it is a later book written in a later era of Judaism in which the priestly code was expanded by the priests themselves, and that the original Mosaic law code likely had less laws and was more simple, possibly even being limited to just the 10 commandments. It could be viewed much like the American Constitution: a super code of law that all other laws must follow. This being said, the fact that so much of the laws are the same, including the “homosexuality” laws, is a testament to the fact that through this change in time, the views on sexuality didn’t change because they viewed sex as a God-given thing. Since God doesn’t change, His gifts don’t change, and if homosexuality was okay then, it is okay now. If Deuteronomy looks like it only condemns homosexual cult prostitution and not all homosexuality, we should be very hesitant to view any verses in Leviticus as condemning ALL homosexuality as it is an earlier source of law that Deut actually builds off of and expands. If all homosexuality was sinful, then we should expect to see a clarification or expansion of the Levitical laws in Deuteronomy.

        In fact, Orthodox Jews struggle with certain passages in the Law, such as the one about how a family must stone a disobedient child, or the death penalty for adulterous partners. No one practises such things, and though the scripture is clear, the reasoning is that God only wanted it that way for that time in Israel’s history. How does one decide such things without a direct command from God? It appears the only difference is a growing morality: while the Israelites of the OT were careful to not allow evil into the land they dwelt in, can it be said that stoning children, even disobedient ones, is merciful and loving? Hosea 6:6 “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” Even IF homosexuality is condemned in the OT, should we not in this present moral climate, treat the issue of homosexuality as similar to the cases for stoning children and giving the death penalty to adulterers? Even if it is sinful, if God Himself can allow for divorce, which is not born with someone, while withholding punishment, how much more should we be able to allow homosexuality, which is born with someone, without speaking against it?

      • John R says:

        Christian57,

        Perhaps there is no gay gene, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are many homosexuals, Moanti included, who identify with their sexual orientation so strongly it might as well be genetic, like skin color: unable to change whether you want to or not. If homosexuality were not such a permanent fixture upon the mind, if it were more like taste in music or hobbies, would Christians such as Moanti struggle so much with the condemnation of it? Would those such as Moanti consider suicide as their only choice after trying so hard to not be gay? Tell me how many alcoholics have struggled to the point of suicide with their actions after trying to quit? How many murderers have tried to quit and committed suicide because they “just can’t stop killing people?” No, homosexuality, whether it is genetic or not, is a quantifiably different class of activity, and one that, because of its permanency, we should consider anew.

        I like playing guitar. I’ve even been guilty of indulging in guitar playing for 4 hours straight when I needed to get work done! Let’s imagine that the Bible, rather than condemning homosexuality, has replaced those verses with guitar playing. Guitar playing is a sin, and that sin will cause death ultimately. Boy, I sure love guitar, but if it’s hurting other people and my entire family is pressuring me to quit, I can just pick up piano, the accepted and blessed instrument.

        Here’s the thing: what if I have extremely strong urges to make music, but piano is repulsive? I now have a gaping hole in my life, and holes are meant to be filled (no pun intended). Studies show that habits can’t be broken, only replaced. Without a viable alternative to turn to, how can I fill the void of music making when guitar playing is evil? And the urge isn’t going away. I’m sorry, but for most people, living with the hole of music their whole lives just isn’t realistically going to happen. I’ll slip up. I’ll play guitar one shady night and I’ll feel guilty about it. After many slip ups, I may even conclude that I CAN’T stop playing guitar, and because it’s evil, I can’t stop being evil. I’m already damned, so if I can’t live a righteous life anyways, might as well kill myself. My whole piano-living family wants me to.

        This happens. Every day. People go through this. People die! And you blame them for wanting to hold onto the bread-crumb that is the possibility that all of the church has been wrong, that homosexuality is in fact NOT sinful in the first place, that the hole in their lives need not be a source of constant guilt. If the tables were flipped, and heterosexuality were the sin, I’d be very guilty of wanting it to not be sinful.

        The thing is, Moses said the laws that he gave were not far away, that they were easy to follow. Jesus said my yoke is easy. Paul says that the Spirit will empower us to do good and to avoid sin. If guitar were evil, I could give it up, easily. If heterosexuality were sinful, I’d probably end up one as of the statistics killing myself. Whether homosexuality is genetic or not, I don’t believe anyone who would kill themselves before changing their sexuality or choosing celibacy has a real choice in the matter. That isn’t easy, or near to them. The Spirit is not empowering them to suicide. And it’s a very real possibility that homosexuality has been wrongfully condemned for millennium.

        On that note, people who promote abstinence, whether for homosexuals or for young unmarried people, commonly used the term “just for sex,” as in “make sure you don’t get married just for sex.” This is with the connotation that sex is a poor reason to consider someone as a lifetime partner, or that the lack of ability to abstain is a poor reason to get married. While I agree in part, I think the problem with those statements is that they discount just how hard it actually is to NOT have sex. Seriously, 90% of Americans after age 20 have had sex, I believe. Between 60%-80% of Christians had sex before they got married. That’s a staggering number from a people who know that premarital sex is condemned! (Popularly, that is. My views are already stated). Anyone who teaches abstinence needs to really understand just how STRONG of an urge sex is, especially when you can’t get it AND you’re in a relationship. I think these teachers do a disservice to both homosexuals and young unmarried people when they preach abstinence, because they always make light of sex as a human NEED like food, and instead throw in a bunch of “sex before marriage is dirty” slander and say waiting will be easy cause God is on your side. I think the numbers will show that for millions of Christians who have had “premarital” sex, God has apparently not helped their strength enough. The same thing goes for masturbation, and sometimes pornography.

        Now I say that not to discredit God. He is faithful and will help us in times of need. But when we pray to God to bring us out of sin, and millions of other Christians do to, and yet God seemingly says no? Maybe we should question whether that specific action is sinful.

        For example, masturbation (thank the internet for anonymity). I was told as a child that it was extremely sinful and that it’d give me green hairy hands. Being 8 or 9, I believed my parents. I tried very hard to stop. I prayed and prayed. And I simply couldn’t. Not for more than a couple weeks. The number of times I was successful at stopping after praying could be counted on one hand in over a decade! Yes, it was my one constant prayer. One that wasn’t answered. I understand God not answering Abraham when it came to His promised covenant. But when it comes to sin, I kinda expected God to have a better reaction time.

        When pornography entered the picture, the guilt doubled. Of course my parents told me about how awful and sinful that was too. I still mostly agree with them. In college I had the bright idea to look up WHY masturbation was sinful. To my great astonishment, I discovered that the Bible doesn’t even mention the subject, but many condemn it because of various reasons: sex is supposed to bring two people together, but “solo sex” is narcistic and selfish; you are cheating against your future spouse (the same argument is used for premarital sex partners, despite there being no guarantee of even living to the next day in the Bible, let alone getting a spouse); the thoughts that go along with it are lust and “adultery in the heart.”

        Without recounting the many refutations I saw of those dubious reasonings, I came to the conclusion, after over a decade of guilt, that masturbation was not inherently sinful, but looking at pornography or having lustful thoughts during it would be. It was something though! Naturally, I was happy to find out that, all along, I was simply following a God-given instinct and that it wasn’t inherently sinful. The parallels with what homosexuals feel and experience are very similar, I would imagine.

        Now it wasn’t until my recent research into marriage that I came across an interesting find with regards to “adultery in the heart.” The verse in question is well known, and in my estimation is well abused to condemn every manner of sexual activity under the sky, from masturbation to fantasies of your wife to oral sex! I am speaking on Matt 5:28

        http://bible.com/111/mat.5.27-28.niv “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

        First of all, the NET Bible translates “in your heart” as “in your mind” nearly everywhere else. Why? Simply because that’s what heart meant to these people. Here, they wanted to preserve the heart statement because of how popular this verse is and the numerous theologies dealing with “heart-sins.”

        So this is a very loaded verse! And one must understand it within its context: the Sermon on the Mount. The snippets are all in the same format and so we should read them all in the same way. Many will read the previous verses on anger and say Jesus is equating anger to murder! But Jesus also said be angry and sin not… So, the logical conclusion for this verse is that one can lust and sin not too. Therefore, we should read these verses as cautions against TEMPTATIONS, not definitions of sin. Lust, like anger, is neutral until we misuse it. It can tempt us, or it can be used for good. No one ever sinned by lusting after their spouse, or by being angry at injustice!

        Furthermore, the word for lust is translated as desire several times in the Bible when used in a positive light, but it is the same word. Lust isn’t even inherently evil, like so many claim! Is it love or lust? Why not both!

        Now who are we lusting after? A woman who is eligible for adultery: that rules out unmarried women and current spouses. So, putting all this together, Jesus is most simply saying “anyone who sexuality desires another man’s wife is already fantasizing himself having adulterous sex with her. THEREFORE! Cut off the temptation before it gets that far!”

        Now I can do that. But I can’t stop desiring sex. Sorry Jesus. Should’ve created me with a lower libido! This message would have been especially poignant back then, because if you can lust after a SPECIFIC woman, you’re close enough that you can have sex with her. Remember, these people wouldn’t have traveled very far. Jesus was not speaking against erotic imagery (which existed then), but rather lusting after physical, real, nearby women that weren’t yours! One never sins while tempted, but temptation, when fully mature, gives birth to sin. Physical action. Physical adultery.

        Mental temptations, or adultery in the heart, are not the same as physical adultery in the flesh.

        Can pornography really be said to be the same danger? I can lust after the women on my screen, but I will never have sex with them. If lust is only a temptation, then I am only submitting myself to temptation by viewing pornography, a temptation that will never fully mature into real sex! Now I’m not saying Christians should support the legal sex slave industry, or that it is without consequences, but my study into the Word seems to suggest that pornography, or even nudity, is not inherently sinful. After all, many of the most holy priests and kings went stark naked when they had holy inspiration to pray and prophecy! Hosea traveled around naked for 3 years!

        Studies show that it is the actions within pornography that are detrimental to the psyche: namely that monkey see monkey do. If one sees much sex without commitment, one will want sex without commitment. So, to the extent that that is true, it should also be true the other way around: if one sees much sex within a committed relationship, one will want that subconsciously. I’m saying the radical: Christianity can use pornography as a tool. A tool to promote and educate that marital sex is AWESOME and good. I mean, the Jews gave their young married couples the song of Solomon, which is basically poetic erotica.

        If it is true that pornography isn’t inherently sinful, then why not?

        Sorry for hijacking the thread, Moanti! Anyway, my overall point is, these discoveries have been liberating beyond belief! I mean it just makes more sense that a good God would create an outlet for teens and celibate people with masturbation. Why would He condemn that? And the same to pornography: again, not that we should support the current industry, but images being sinful? Seems a bit arbitrary compared to His other sexual sin laws.

        If the same could be proven for homosexuality, I personally know how liberating it would be for them, and how desperately thankful they would feel that our God did not forsake them when they asked for help.

        If homosexual sex is truly sin, then I know exactly how frustrating that will be and how detrimental to their walk with Christ it will be. I nearly gave up God, thinking “I must be a bad Christian, why bother praying? He’s not gonna listen anyway.”

        So we should keep that in mind when we are trying to condemn Homosexuality. I’m sure many who would condemn it can relate to my story. Jesus was full of grace AND truth. It may sound like I am a liberal with no morals, but no one who knows me personally could say that is true. I grew up in a pretty conservative family, in case you couldn’t tell, and until recently I was content to be a sheep, absorbing every conservative view I heard. Now, I have been called to tear down misinterpretations and further the ministry of Christ. I would have been appalled at the things I am saying now. It is through the Spirit that I began to view Scripture in a new light, and while that doesn’t make me infallible, I’m going to give it my best shot at finding Godly truths.

        If homosexuality has always existed in its current form, with some having strong affinities towards the same sex and some who are bisexual, then those in the past would have experienced the same things. I wonder if Moses would have said his laws were easy if he knew how hard it was to not act out on homosexuality… Or perhaps he never intended those laws to apply to all homosexuals.

      • John R says:

        One small note: it should be noted that Jesus completely refuted several Mosaic laws. The biggest of these were love thine enemy and similarly, rather than take an eye for an eye, turn the other cheek. Jesus, when refuting these things, always said “you have heard of old.” When he agreed with the Scripture, he said “it is written.” What this implies is that Jesus himself did not think the entirety of the Scripture was divinely inspired, and that certain parts of it were added erroneously by later, human hands.

        How can we tell what Scripture is true and what is not in the OT then? Well, we use Jesus’ own method of interrogation: does it follow the ultimate law, the law of love? Love thy neighbour as thyself is the fulfillment of the law, for love never does harm to a neighbor.

        Here’s the interesting thing! If true love never does harm to a neighbor and is the best way to avoid sin, then all hate is sin, or leads to sin. Sin is summarized as “doing harm to your neighbor.”

        Sin = harm.

        It’s very simple. The law, then, was given to the Israelites to prevent harm. God values love so much that those who act out of hate are considered harmful and worthy of only death. Because God is a God of love, when one sins, or acts in harmful hatred, one is showing that their God is not the God of love, but the God of hate, or Satan, and therefore all acts of hatred are idolatry, which is what separates us from God.

        Interesting isn’t it? Sin is harm, love is benefit. So all laws in the OT that are harmful, or are not the purest expressions of love, can be called into question. All laws that are purely beneficial can be established as God given.

        So then, the laws on man with man sex! Taken in this light, I’d like to call into question whether a blanket ban on all homosexuality is purely beneficial. We can see if it is beneficial by its fruits, as harmful actions produce harmful fruits, and beneficial actions produce beneficial fruits. If the fruits are not beneficial, then even IF the laws truly do ban all homosexuality, we should call into question the authenticity of this Scripture, just as Jesus did with “an eye for an eye.”

        First, we should see if the homosexuality laws have changed at all over time. Our oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament come from the Dead Sea Scrolls between 200 BC and 90 AD, but unfortunately, the homosexuality laws are not preserved. However, the wording in Leviticus elsewhere is nearly identical to the MS scripts, so we can assume that the wording is identical even to 200 BC. This doesn’t mean that they are authentic, however, as many of the laws, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, are laws that Jesus refuted as illegitimate. Since the original giving if the law happened almost 1500 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, it should be considered plausible that the laws on homosexuality, and indeed the eye for an eye texts, could have been added in that amount of time.

        Let us look at the fruits of banning all homosexuality. Both the fruits for the homosexuals and the fruits for the heterosexuals enforcing the ban. For homosexuals, their gender identity solidifies by late puberty and in males is not likely to change. Those who are gay and have families that condemn their homosexuality are 8 times more likely to attempt suicide and 6 times more likely to have depression, and many give up their Christian faith under the guilt and pressure. Condemning homosexuality, then, can be directly linked to bad fruits: death. Harm. Are not the wages of sin death? When we call impure what God has made pure, do we not commit harm?

        On the flip side, those that condemn homosexuality are not without repercussion. Most of the world views these people as hateful, and some of them indeed are hateful towards homosexuality. We have already established that hate is the opposite of love, and that hate leads to harm/sin while love, being the fulfillment of the law, leads to God. Since most of the world views Christians who condemn homosexuality as hateful, most of the world has yet another reason to ridicule Christianity, and so the fruit of condemning homosexuality is less souls coming to Christ.

        This is a really bad fruit! One that leads to ultimate death! How then can we say that we are acting in perfect love by condemning homosexuality? The only fruits of that act, that I can see, are death. Suicide, depression, familial ties severed, the ridicule of Christianity… All from condemning homosexuality.

        Let me just suggest that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by ending the condemnation on homosexuality. The fruits of condemnation are death, and so it cannot be said to be a loving activity. It is not of the law.

        Furthermore, I have a third interpretation of the homosexuality verses in Leviticus, one that may be valid if indeed the scribes changed the original meaning of the verses between 1600 BC and 200 BC.

        http://bible.com/59/lev.20.13.ESV If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

        I would like to point out that the “both of them” could easily be a later addition. Why? Because the original language simply reads “abhorrence they-did two-of-them.” The sentence reads completely fine without the two of them, and it has interesting consequences, because the rest of the verse would have a vague number of people being killed, as it used only “they” to denote the pronoun. What it could read as, without the “two of them” part is:

        A man shall not lie with male while one is simultaneously lying with a woman, for they are committing a detestable act. They (all three) shall be put to death.

        So this would be condemning devil’s threesomes! Why? Because under the system of polygyny, a husband could have many wives, but a wife could have only one husband. As I have demonstrated before, in this culture, sex was a much greater commitment than marriage vows and so by having two men enter into the woman, she was effectively one flesh to both of them and had two husbands. Well this is just adultery, and so it makes sense that they all would be killed! Adultery has an already established death penalty, and the Bible is not without mention to threesomes (take mother and daughter laws) so it’s plausible that the practice of devil’s threesomes was common enough to warrant a law.

        The previous verse in Lev 18 gives no indication to penalty or that it ISN’T speaking of devil’s threesomes, so this is certainly plausible.

        Now when we get to Paul’s ministry, he was trained in the rabbinical teachings of the day, and they did indeed condemn pedastery, especially same sex pedastery. Why? After looking at the writings, it appears that they condemned it because of its perceived bad fruits: the boys were forever effeminate and therefore weren’t fulfilling their gender roles, and it went against procreation. Yes, in that day, the rabbis taught that sex was illegitimate if it wasn’t for the purpose of procreation, much like Catholic teaching. Most of us would say that this is a false supposition, and so we are left with a condemnation of pedastery based on the idea that it scars young boys and based on verses that may have been bastardized. It was NOT condemned for the inherent wrongness of homosexual sex, but because of its perceived bad fruits.

        Paul would have been familiar with both the rabbinical teachings and the fact that Jesus promoted the law of love and dismissed certain Scriptures, so his reaction is not unexpected. He condemns behaviors that go against nature: women doing sexual actions contrary to nature and men doing actions contrary to the natural use of the woman.

        Perhaps he is speaking on all homosexuality. Admittedly, it is hard to prove he isn’t. But it should be noted that he is basing his condemnation on the law of love, and the (perhaps erroneous) idea that homosexual actions are contrary to nature. Most scholars of that day used the “fact” that animals did not engage in homosexuality, so therefore it most be contrary to nature. We now know than a multitude of animals do so, and some even engage in homosexuality with one partner their whole lives.

        Furthermore, in that day, Paul would have understood homosexuality not as a sexual orientation, but in Greco-Roman terms of submissive-dominant relationships. The idea was, a man is the head of the household. Therefore, he should not be submissive and be penetrated. It isn’t natural to man’s nature. Understanding this, it’s easy to see how Paul would condemn homosexuality, not because the act itself is wrong, but because God wants the man to be dominant. Sounds a bit sexist, doesn’t it? In this light, a man who is penetrated cannot enter the kingdom of heaven because it is not beneficial or loving. Also, homosexual acts were considered back then to simply be caused by excess sexual desire, not by orientation. With how much he attacks sexual excess, it’s no wonder he condemned homosexuality.

        I would just suggest that in our culture, it has been revealed that sexual orientation is indeed a real thing, and that in Paul’s day it is unlikely that he was aware of such a thing. If he had been, he might have been even more hesitant to write on the issue than he already was. Yes, he was hesitant, because with how prevalent the act was in Rome, he only attacks homosexuality a few times briefly.
        If he had lived today, and had seen how persecution of homosexuality leads to death, I think he might give an outcry against it’s condemnation.

        Paul was inspired to preach the gospel and interpret Jesus’ teachings. He radically interpreted several Scriptures. But Paul was a man, capable of error. Who in our day is so highly esteemed as Paul in their inerrancy? No one, because we recognize that we are fallible humans. The only person’s words who we don’t have to take with a grain of salt is Jesus’. Paul could have been in error in condemning homosexuality, because he didn’t have all the facts. Furthermore, what he saw predominantly WAS detestable, with pedastery being the most common homosexuality of the day. If all homosexuals were pederasts, I’d feel a lot more comfortable condemning it too.

        Once again, I have written more than I meant to! In conclusion, I see that the fruits of the condemnation of homosexuality leads only to death. Therefore, condemnation of all homosexuality is hatred and cannot be of the law, which is love. As Christians under the law of love, we should not hate our homosexual brothers and sisters. If we were to instead love them and end the condemnation, the world would see the good fruits that would bring: more converts, more walks with Christ, more love. Also, more adoptions. That’s a topic for another day, however.

        Some will say that “I do love my homosexual brethren! I just disapprove of the activity.” Love is an action, and disapproval is an action. The action of disapproval is what CAUSES the 8x higher suicide rate, no matter how much you “love” them otherwise. It doesn’t matter how much you “love” the person, if you disapprove of their homosexuality, it causes pain, harm, and sometimes suicide.

        Disapproval of child rapists is something even criminals do! But the thing is, child rape, in and of itself, is hatred, as it damages the child irrevocably. It is selfish. It is one thing to hate hatred and harmful acts. It is another to hate loving and consensual acts. Hatred of harm is love. Love of harm is hate. Where is the harm, the hatred, the sin, in consensual homosexual acts? Every other sin has inherent harm to one’s neighbor written into it. Prove to me the inherent harm written into consensual homosexuality, and I’ll recant.

      • Christian57 says:

        Hello, John R.

        Excuse me, are you adressing your comments to me, personally…?

        I inform you once more and a last time, I am not candidate to debate this subject, I already know and hold on to the Biblical Truth on this “case”, settled at rest by my God long, long ago in Scripture, the Holy Spirit blessed work achieving to convince my personal conscience according to the Truth of Scripture teachings.

        But I will adress one of your assumptions, and your question to me :

        1. (Moses) “Or perhaps he never intended those laws to apply to all homosexuals.”

        John R, there is no “homosexual class” of human beings according to Scripture… This is a modern “concept” I personally refuse to be authoritative, to rule over over my understanding of our humankind no matter the social pressure, stress of “poltical correctness” normativity, in the same way an unbeliever is absolutely “free” and right to refuse and oppose a group, or an individual Christian believer(s) could act coercively to subject them to Biblical Scripture teachings and “laws”, to its “God” authority over and against one’s personal conscience. and existence.

        I restate this, in case you missed it :

        There is no “homosexual class” of human beings according to Scripture.

        Plain males and females, no “third sex / gender”, no “sexual orientation” based “casses”. Period.

        2. ‘Prove to me the inherent harm written into consensual homosexuality, and I’ll recant.”

        I have zero obligation to prove you anything, it is you voicing claims in favor of same-sex sexual behavior within Christianity against established norms and therefore, the “burden of proof” rests on your shoulders to prove such things to be acceptable to Jesus-Christ, but if you read again my previous comment, the answer was already there….

        You see, the problem with “homosexuality” is that it cross, contradict, and as you ask for it, it does always harm, damage severely the Creator’s gender boundaries no matter who, and why this act is taking event…

        Now, I have no idea if you profess to be a believer and disciple of Jesus-Christ, though if you do it is not obvious at all, quite the opposite in fact, you are really erring far, far away from our LORD teachings, and have a lot, a lot of proper research to do for your information…

        I will leave you with this reliable source, should you be interested to learn the actual Christian doctrine, the Biblical Truth on this topic, among plenty.

        This website is a real well of widsom, ideal to confront and correct your numerous personal interpretations, and worldly misconceptions of Christianity should you want to.

        I chose a relevant answer “just for you” as I provide you the link :

        http://www.gotquestions.org/God-love-and-homosexuality.html

        Regards.

      • John R says:

        Christian57,

        I was only addressing you in part. Most of it was to everyone. And I do profess to be a Christian. As far as my actions showing that I am from Christ, I am behaving like the Berean Jews, testing everything against the Word (Acts 17:11). They were commended for being skeptical of Paul! Now, when one questions why the church believes certain things, one is accused of being a poor Christian! The modern church is far away indeed from the early church.

        Now you say that you don’t recognize homosexuals as a true classification of humans. Okay, fine. Then there are only men and women. But you cannot deny that certain men are permanently attracted to other men, and vice versa for women. However, it sounds like you are trying to do just that. Deny that anyone has attractions to anyone sexually. So then, David wasn’t attracted sexually to Bathsheba on the roof? Why did he commit adultery then? If there is no such thing as sexual attraction, why would Solomon take 1000 wives? Why would there be rape? Why would anyone have sex in the first place? It is not Godliness to deny that there is sexual attraction, it is religious blindness. There is sexual attraction, and some people feel it towards the same sex as strongly as you feel it towards the opposite. That is a fact of today. We call those people homosexuals. Arguing over the semantics of this issue is a red heron, so please stop.

        I am familiar with gotquestions.org, and you are right. They are a wealth of knowledge. However, they are human, like everyone else, and God said He will make the wise fools. No matter how learned one is, it doesn’t make one infallible in interpretation of the Scripture. Not even Paul could or would say he was infallible in interpretation! In fact, most would say, the more intelligent you are, the harder it is for you to be religious. The only people who’s Word we don’t have to judge for truth is God and Jesus.

        I agree with many many answers that gotquestions gives. But when it comes to marriage, sex, and the inspiration of the Scripture as a whole, I question their judgement. Look up their definition of one flesh. I sent a question in 3 weeks ago asking where in the Bible they got their definition from. They haven’t answered me yet, despite their 7 day guarantee. Why? Because that definition of one flesh doesn’t come from the Bible. It comes from the Church’s oral traditions.

        You know how Jesus treated oral tradition? He would say “you have heard x, but I say y.” Jesus always went back to the law of love in his discussions with the Pharisees.

        Now, speaking of Jesus, don’t you think it is curious that He not only refuted the oral traditions of the Jews, but the very Scripture itself? The Torah, no less! The most holy book in the Jewish religion! We say that all Scripture is God inspired, but if Jesus is God, then why would Jesus, while still in the Old Covenant, refute a law He had previously given to Moses? This makes Jesus a liar for over a thousand years.

        A good example is the “eye for an eye” justice. There are more than one verses and punishments that go hand in hand with this type of justice. If you kill a man, you must be killed. If you injure a man, it must be done to you. If you steal, you must pay it back and 5 times more.

        This wasn’t just some throwaway verse Jesus was refuting, He was telling the Pharisees that nearly half of the laws of justice in the Torah were not valid! Jesus said, rather than an eye for an eye, we should turn the other cheek.

        Now again, if Jesus is God, then why would He perfectly inspire the original writers of the Torah to copy multiple laws that followed the eye for an eye principle, then say that same principle was false later? This makes Jesus a liar, because God cannot change. You may say “Jesus brought about the new covenant” which is true, but when Jesus refuted these laws, He was still under the Old Covenant. In fact, you cannot deny this because our entire theology is built upon the fact that Jesus died as the one perfect man to fulfill the Old Covenant!

        Similarly, we have multiple verses in the Torah ascribed to God dealing with divorce. Yet Jesus said “Moses allowed you to divorce.” Moses. Not God. Jesus never ascribed the divorce laws to anyone but Moses. What does this tell us?

        It tells us that Jesus Himself did not hold the Torah in as high esteem as we do today, and that He Himself thought some of the laws and ideas in it came from humans, not God. A God who hates sin would never inspire a writer to write allowances for it! Similarly, a God who loves an activity would never inspire a writer to condemn it!

        So, if we are to be like Jesus, how then do we tell which Scripture is false and which is true? Simple. Jesus tells us that the whole of the Law is summed up in this: that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Paul tells us this is the fulfillment of the law because love never does harm to a neighbor.

        So! Putting those two together, we see that if a writing is loving and produces benefit to your neighbor, or good fruits, then it is from God for all good things come from Him.

        If a writing is hateful and produces harm, or evil fruits, then it is from human hands and so it holds no authority. Even if it’s in the Bible.

        Now one might say, “Paul said all Scripture is God-inspired!” This is only one of two translations of that verse in 2 Tim 3:16. The original wording is “Every writing God-breathed and/also useful…”

        Anyone who knows Greek knows that the adjective can come after the noun, and that the verb “is” is assumed. But where is “is” supposed to go? Most put it before God-breathed, but some put it after. The latter translation effectively says “Every writing (that is) God-breathed (is) also useful.”

        Now that’s quite a different interpretation! Which was Paul truly saying though? Consider this: what Scripture was Paul even referring to in this chapter? Earlier he mentions the “holy writings” and the “law” and the “prophets.” In other words, Paul is speaking of only the books of the Mosaic Law, or the Torah, and the books of the Earlier and Later Prophets. Books like Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, those are all in a separate collection of poetry, and in fact, during Paul’s day weren’t strictly canon as holy writings! They were considered good stories and poetry, but not strictly authoritative or holy.

        So then, Paul is speaking on only the books of the Law and and of the Prophets. None of the other writings and none of the New Testament is endorsed here! This seems odd, considering that even Jesus’ own words are not endorsed by Paul.

        Unless… Unless we consider that Paul truly did mean “every writing that is inspired by God is also useful.” Only in this interpretation can we endorse any of the Gospels or Psalms or Paul’s writing as authoritative! This is not an interpretation of the verse, it simply is the only way we can view any other writings as authoritative, in Paul’s own words. Remember he could not have endorsed his own writings or any of the NT as inspired by God, for that would be both anachronistic and arrogant.

        So then, when Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets in Matthew 5:17, we see another phrase that refers not to the entire Old Testament, but only to the books of the Law and the books of the Prophets. He says not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all things are fulfilled/accomplished. Not until the end of time will the law be obliterated. This seems to endorse the view that every single word of the OT is authoritative, but Jesus Himself denied some of the OT. In addition, Paul adamantly denied that we now have to get circumcised and similar important laws, so what does He mean here? Clearly some of the law passed away, but which parts?

        It’s simple. Did Jesus fulfill the law and the prophecies of the Messiah? Yes. He was blameless of sin and he sacrificed Himself in our place. This means now we are under the law of Grace. Are we still obligated to follow the summation of the law of Sin: love your neighbor as yourself? Yes.

        So then, although Jesus was speaking on the books of the Law in the first instance, He cleverly referred to the Law of Love in the second reference to law.

        So there you have it. Jesus Himself did not believe as we believe, that the entirety of our current canon of books is all God inspired. Our current canon wasn’t even in existence until 4 centuries after His death! Some of God’s truth is certainly in there, while others are only laws written by human inspiration, such as the laws on divorce. It should be noted that even the Jews of Jesus day began to deny certain Scripture from the law, a law they thought they were under by God! For example, the death penalty for disobedient children. The Jews made that impossible. Even they began to see how barbaric some of the laws truly are, during the time of barbaric gladiator tournaments. Why can’t we do the same thing, 20 centuries later?

        How do we tell which is which, the God-breathed Scripture from the human? Paul tells us. Love does no harm to a neighbor. If a writing tells us to do harm, then it is not from God, because harm is sin. If a writing tells us to act in love, then it is from God, because love is the fulfillment of the law.

        I am not denying that the Bible is not from God. I am simply saying that even Jesus thought some of it was polluted by human ideas.

        Now I come back to the issue of homosexuality. Jesus refuted certain laws written at the same time as the homosexuality laws. So these laws in Leviticus are not beyond reproach. Paul wrote his condemnations on homosexuality during a time when it was solely expressed out of sexual overindulgence and pedastery.

        Even Paul is not beyond reproach. He was human. The Bereans did not take his word as the Word of God. They searched the Scripture for the truths of his statements!

        Now God cannot inspire a law that produces harm. Similarly, nothing that produces benefit can be called sin, to produce benefit to your neighbor is to love him. To call love a sin is to call God a sinner, which is blasphemy. After all, if breaking one law breaks the whole Law, then calling one type of love a “sin” calls ALL love “sin.” It effectively makes one a Satanist. This is why Jesus told the Pharisees that their father was the Devil, because they hated love.

        So, we must test all Scripture in this light. Did homosexuality produce harm in Paul’s time? Yes, as it was expressed through pedastery. So then he was right, partially, in condemning it. I would suggest that malakos, or soft one, referred to the teenage boy in the Roman homosexual relationship who was penetrated, while arsenokoitai referred to the older man who penetrated many boys. Paul wasn’t condemning homosexuality. He was condemning pedastery, which was committed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals in this day.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

        Did homosexuality produce harm in ancient Israel’s time? It’s unsure, but they condemned man with man as with a woman or in the beds of a woman. Either way, they didn’t seemingly condemn female homosexuality, so it isn’t likely that they condemned all male homosexuality. You may say it was a duality law, but considering that they specified bestiality in terms of men AND women, it is wildly inconsistent that they would condemn male homosexuality and not female. Furthermore, I have already shown in a previous comment that it could easily have originally referred to devil’s threesomes, and not homosexuality.

        Either way, we have to look at the issue now. All sin produces tangible real harm. We should be able to tell what is sinful and what is not without ever looking at the Bible. For example, murder produces harm because it ends a lifetime of possibility and causes grieving. Thievery causes harm by denying a person the fruits of their labor and placing an undue burden on them and their family. Bearing false witness leads to improper judgements in a court case, meaning the innocent get wrongfully punished. Adultery causes harm by hurting your spouse emotionally and causing physical harm to the gene pool, as well as spreading diseases, etc. If we can’t define homosexuality as harmful without the Bible, then it cannot be sin.

        Got Questions said homosexuality prevents a person from going to heaven. So that is why it isn’t loving to endorse it. But they still haven’t said why it is inherently harmful. If it produces benefit, then I think God is being inconsistent in His judgement on what is sinful and what is not, compared to the other sin laws. God is not inconsistent, nor does He condemn what is beneficial, so it remains to be seen whether homosexuality is truly condemned.

        Now the next point Christian57 brought up is that it breaks God’s gender roles. On the contrary, apart from the laws of homosexuality, there are few statements regarding the inherent role of a man and woman. The only roles that are stated according to gender are those that are within a heterosexual marriage, and it should be noted that most of these roles are incredibly patriarchal in nature. Even Paul said that women should not speak in church or teach men, yet most don’t follow that rule today. So if you really want to follow that road, then I expect you to attack Moanti for writing on a website and teaching men. No, I think gender roles are mostly a man-made invention, specific to the culture. We do have natural tendencies particular to our gender, of course, but these are the only gender roles we have been given by God.

        Regarding the Bible’s inordinate amount of time spent on heterosexual marriage, it should be considered that every law regarding marriage has to do with protecting the gene pool. Incest, adultery, staying faithful in a marriage, it’s all oriented on having kids in the best way possible. Breaking those laws causes both emotional harm and physical harm with the gene pool.

        Homosexuals don’t have to worry about that stuff, so perhaps this is why the writers of the Bible didn’t bother spending hardly any time on it at all! Homosexual sex is basically risk free, so as long as you’re not promiscuous, there really isn’t any other law they’d have to follow.

        So, let’s assume we don’t have a Bible. We know that to sin is to cause harm. We look at heterosexuality, and we look at homosexuality. The heterosexual couple lives together, prays together, has sex, and makes children. They make each other happy. They raise these children, grow old, and die. There is nothing but benevolence in this picture.

        The homosexual couple lives together, prays together, has sex, and have no children. They make each other happy. They grow old and die. On the outside looking in, the picture is basically the same except for the children part! And unless you are Catholic and believe sex is only to produce children, don’t even go there.

        Inherently, there is nothing harmful with a committed heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is sinful, for what sin ever caused no harm?

        The worst of all sins is blasphemy. To deny the goodness of God and slander His name. To do this, to call what is pure love “hate,” is to pervert and distort one’s own heart, for we are made in the image of God. If God chooses to express that image through making one homosexual, to slander homosexuality is to slander God and become a blasphemer. So you may think that I have the burden of proof on me, but you would be equally as guilty of blasphemy if it turns out you are wrong in your condemnation! So don’t be so quick to be right.

        I say the laws in the Bible regarding homosexuality are without authority. We should throw them out, because condemning homosexuality condemns love and promotes hatred and harm. No good has come out of the condemnation of homosexuality. No souls have been won. No homosexuals have been converted to heterosexuality. Many have committed suicide. How can the church promote such a heinous crime? How could a loving God want this for His children? If Jesus could throw out an eye for an eye and divorce, then we can throw out the condemnation on homosexuality.

        This is not the only thing I believe is without authority in the Bible, but it is beyond the scope of this comment to speak on all of it. Jesus did much the same thing as I am doing now. He looked at the Scriptures and tested them. Does an eye for an eye justice produce harm or good? Ultimately, it only leads to more destruction, while mercy leads to redemption. Hosea 6:6 “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” God’s good character is shown much more through turning the other cheek than an eye for an eye, so whoever coined that idea did not get it from God. Yet people believed that idea for thousands of years!

        Similarly, the idea that homosexual sex is inherently sinful only produces harm, and whoever came up with it did not get that idea from God. We have indeed believed it for thousands of years, and I say it’s time to put an end to it.

        I say it is not the homosexuals in committed relationships who need to repent, but the church for their blasphemy of the goodness Christ’s name!

      • Hello there John!
        I am sorry it’s taken me quite a while to respond. I wanted to say that I have been enjoying your comments… Indeed you do present some “radical” ideas that most traditional doctrine does not endorse, yet if we try to avoid human doctrine and tradition all together and just look to Biblical Scripture alone, a lot of what you have said can be Biblically supported. Some is a bit confusing I would suppose (like how do we define adultery and divorce if all sex equals marriage), but still, it is all rather intriguing. I think you might find these posts interesting from the gotquestions.org website that Christian57 frequently posts.
        http://www.gotquestions.org/concubine-concubines.html
        http://www.gotquestions.org/multiple-wives.html
        In both cases, it’s final conclusion supports what you are saying about the Bible not overtly condemning polygamy, and also supports that God values love and ensuring a woman’s survival over rules. Also the second link takes personal conviction into account on how to proceed when one becomes a Christian while they are already in a polygamous marriage.

        Many would say Jesus “opinion” on marriage is that of one husband and one wife. But in the same verse that’s always quoted to support this, Jesus goes onto to say “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only to those whom it has been given.” (Matthew 19:11.) Furthermore, I think one should take a closer look at Matthew 19 as a whole because it might hold the key to Jesus mentioning those with a natural affection towards the same gender, thus supporting the idea of sexual orientation. Let me explain. Here we have the 3 types of eunuchs mentioned by Jesus (Greek: eunouchoi, eunouchisthesan and eunouchisan);
        1) Those who have been so from the womb of their mother who were born (eunouchoi),
        2) Those made so by men (eunouchisthesan)
        3) Those who are eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven (eunouchisan.)

        As a whole in Matthew 19, many believe that Jesus is simply talking about those who do marry (verses 3-9) and then those who don’t marry (verses 10-12.) But this simplified translation is not at all taking into account what Jesus had described here. Many accept that Eunuchs were only males who’s testicles had been castrated/mutilated and were incapable of procreation. Others say that Eunuchs modernly apply to singleness or to those who are infertile. Those could be acceptable conclusions if we ignored the first mention that Jesus made of a type of eunuch (verse 12). Jesus said first, “there are Eunuchs who have been so from the womb of their mother who were born.” (Note that most translations merely say “from birth,” but the original translation from Greek is the above.) The mention of the womb is significant, as this shows that what makes them a eunuch was predetermined in their prenatal development. Psalms 139:13,14 states “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mothers womb. I praise you, as I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

        Rather than assume the meaning, we can look historically at the definitions for eunuchs in Biblical times. Ancient text of Roman Law defined 2 types of eunuchs; one being “whole and natural” and the other “mutilated” (Lex Julia et Papia, book 1, digest 50.16.128). “Whole” meant that they had nothing physical missing (i.e., no missing or deformed genitals). “Natural” meaning they were born that way (as Jesus describes.) The second, “mutilated” type were those with deformed genitals which were made so on purpose by castration (hence the lack of the word “natural.”) But the ones from birth were defined in Roman law as “not unable, but UNWILLING to have sexual relations with females” (reference to the historical text of Clement of Alexandria.) These whole and natural eunuchs by birth had rights in Rome to marry and adopt children, since they were unwilling to perform the sexual act to procreate with a woman. Simply put, whole and natural eunuchs were one without sexual attraction to the opposite gender. With this, we see that marriage was still part of some whole and natural eunuchs so what made them unique was their mental/emotional capacity for gender attraction, not their physical attributes.

        On the other hand, mutilated eunuchs did not have marital rights. Some still had sexual ability (those with just their testicles cut off), but they were not allowed to marry in ancient times and were usually made eunuchs to be “the keeper of the bed chamber” which was an office held to oversee a harem of women. Although not mentioned in Roman Law, there were also eunuchs (both whole/natural and castrated) that devoted their entire life to their religious practice and purposely refrained from marriage or childbearing. The most modern of eunuchs with this ongoing title are eunuchs in the Catholic Church who were castrated to sing in the church choir and not have their voice change at puberty. (This is why so many people always think of eunuchs as castrated.)

        So when Jesus speaks of whole and natural eunuchs who were formed in the womb this way, he is not merely referring to those who chose a life of singleness, nor someone with mutilated genitals nor infertile people. This just doesn’t fit with this first example.

        When one tries to only apply Eunuchs to singleness, this is all something we already are when we come forth from the womb and is not anything considered until maturity (wether to marry or not.) Most peculiar is the thought of infertility, as one would not know such things about themselves (before modern reproductive tests) unless they had married and tried for quite a while. So once again, if marriage would be required to know this, it is not speaking merely about those who don’t get married. Lastly, we have the most popular thought of eunuchs only meaning castration, which is impossible in the womb. And this doesn’t speak of those with some form of genital deformity, as they are considered “whole” in their “natural” born state. So none of these definitions fit perfectly for the first eunuch mentioned by Jesus except for the natural and whole eunuch who had no deformity or infertility, but simply has no sexual desire towards the opposite sex. This is significant because when one looks at the context of the verse, most assume Jesus is speaking about people who marry or people who don’t marry… But when we see that whole and natural eunuchs and even some mutilated eunuchs had the physical capacity to have sex and marry, we can see that Jesus is not merely talking about those who marry and those who are single. So when He said “not all can received this saying, but only to those to whom it was given,” He is saying a lot more than “not everyone gets married.” Yet the links that Christian57 have provided often use this same eunuch verse to say that “it is a lie that humans were created with the need for sexual fulfillment.” I feel this statement can only be applied to those who were born a-sexual, without any natural attraction to either gender. But for the most part, we can see that most humans do have a sex drive, and this naturally drives them to want to partner up and marry. So overall, Matthew 19 appears to be referring to those who cannot accept a man-wife marriage for themselves. Eunuchs are then recognized and acknowledged by Jesus. Most interestingly, Jesus ends in verse 12 by saying: “Let the one who is able to accept this, accept it.” So acceptance of eunuchs is encouraged!

        Lastly on this topic, this was a very radical thing for Jesus to even say, as Biblically we can see a rejection of eunuchs from the whole of society. Yet the prophet Isaiah made it known that God accepted them as they were when they followed Him (refer to Isaiah 56:3-5) and we can see a baptism of a Christian eunuch in Acts 8:27-40. So despite the majority rejection, God embraces eunuchs of all types; whole/natural (not attracted to opposite gender), mutilated (castrated/deformed) and those who are called to celibacy for the Lord.

        Now I just thought of something… In one of the links about polygamy, the author notes that although the New Testament seems to support and endorse monogamy, it does not ever say “thou shalt not take multiple wives.” Now we know that the Bible condemns certain types of same-sex sex, but also nowhere does it say “a man shalt not take a husband” or “a woman shalt not take a wife.” Some would say that the idea of same-sex committed marriage was inconceivable back then, but after further study into the historical climate of this age, we can see that in the time of Paul, we have proof that this is not the case. During Paul’s lifetime, the Emperor of Rome was Nero who is most known for killing Christians and being an anti-Christ figure of sorts. Nero was married 4 times. Twice to women, and twice to 2 men who were his slaves (named Sporus and Pythagoras.) In his second marriage to a male, he had a huge public wedding. Note that both of these marriages were riddled with problems, as one of his husbands even killed himself, and Nero seemed totally deranged and mentally ill. So these were not good examples of same-sex marriage, but examples none the less. So knowing that Paul was alive to know of these public gay marriages, it is interesting that Paul did not specifically condemn the same-sex marriage or wedding itself. As Nero would have provided a perfect example to mention and say “do not do this!” But instead, only in Romans 1, possible homosexual sex acts by idolaters are mentioned as happening in Rome, but still not as a command against it or same-gender marriage.

        I think in general, churches can easily form doctrines that aren’t Biblical, yet use only certain verses to support them out of context and insert a lot of conjecture. Now in regards to marriage, I have heard it said many times, “gay marriage does not reflect Christ and the church!” But then I challenge to say that no modern heterosexual marriage in our culture reflects this today aside from what has nothing to do with gender differences. Check out my link on this that shows how ancient Jewish marriage custom PERFECTLY reflects Christ and the Church. https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/04/06/can-a-gay-marriage-reflect-christ-and-the-church/ This does not mean we must go back to these martial customs. I feel that God was showing His plan for redemption in a symbolic way through this ritual, but redemption has already come.

        But I think if the union of marriage was so important to God for eternity, than we would be married to our earthly partners in Heaven, or even new heavenly partners. But instead Jesus said we are not married to each other and will be like the angels of Heaven.

        Sorry for going on and taking some detours from your original topic of your comment…. I just thought of these things and felt they were worth mention…. But overall, I see your last comment as logical and solid. It is clear that love is all the Law demands and love cannot be conceived as a sin. So condemning all homosexual relationships really doesn’t make sense in light of the law of sin, which is not to cause harm. The only “harm” connected to committed homosexual unions seems to be from the people that condemn them, not the people who commit to them. So perhaps it is the popular traditional doctrinal view that has distorted the intended meaning of these verses by over generalizing it to all gays, which in turn has caused many to flee the faith and is producing some very bad fruit. So this alternate perspective is not to fully deny that the Bible mentions homosexual sex, but that it only mentions certain forms of homosexual sex that cause harm, not loving monogamous life-long marriages or unions.

        But if it is a prohibition against all forms of homosexual unions, than why couldn’t Jesus forgive it as a sin? I am sure there are very few Christians who could genuinely attest to not sinning for weeks, months, or years on end. We all sin, so we are all in a continuous state of sin, as it is our flesh nature that does this, even if we don’t want to do it. When a man or woman remarries after a Biblically non-sanctioned divorce, that couple would be living in perpetual sin because it is considered as an adulterous relationship to God according to Scripture…. But we know that there are Christians who believe that Jesus has sanctified their re-marriage union, even though Scripture clearly condemns it. Knowing that we are saved by grace and not by works, we know that God forgives our sin when we stumble. So if God can do this for the perpetual adulterous re-marriage, why not for gay couples?

        I would like to know your conviction on these things if you’d be willing to share. Thanks again for your contribution!!!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • John R says:

        Hello Moanti,

        I am glad that you enjoy my comments, and I likewise have enjoyed and benefited from viewing yours! Honestly, mine sound a little radical to even myself! I grew up in a very conservative family. But as soon as I started realizing that there were alternate opinions out there, and that they actually made a lot of sense (sometimes), I felt driven to undertake the monumental task of determining for myself what certain things truly meant to the people writing the books of the Bible. This really actually happened by a miracle.

        I am in a very happy relationship, and have been so for some time. Naturally, though we are both Christians, it got harder and harder to resist the pull of what we thought was premarital sex and eventually we caved in, as 3 to 4 out of 5 Christians do. Now I hadn’t done any of this study of the Bible yet, but neither of us really feel guilty because when we had sex, we said to each other “This means we have to marry.” That was a conviction of the conscience, because I wasn’t going to engage in such an important union with her and then dump her later like it meant nothing. That would be spiteful to her, and I at least knew that THAT certainly wasn’t God’s plan for sex. Then later her parents found out.

        Of course, all hell broke loose, but not because of the sex. They were disappointed to be sure, particularly her father, a very conservative Christian, but what really ground his gears was that we didn’t feel guilty about it. He even questioned whether we were Christians. He asked me to defend why we didn’t feel guilty. Well… I had done some research on premarital sex and what the Bible has to say about it, and I discovered that it is actually a point of great debate among Christian circles! Some said the Bible says nothing against hookups and pointed to the fact that unmarried prostitutes were never punished. This is only half true, as Biblically they were reviled as immoral. Some said it wasn’t condemned, but that it’s best to do it in a committed relationship with the intent to marry. I also found their arguments a little lacking. Then the last group condemned it outright, saying sex is reserved for marriage. I already knew this argument from my upbringing, but what was interesting is that looking at the specifics of their arguments, I found even THEIR reasoning to be flawed and they left holes in their arguments! They condemned premarital sex as sinful while neglecting to answer how can it be sinful if unmarried prostitutes were never condemned? Pretty much every other sexual sin was condemned and they were punished, so clearly premarital sex was not as sinful then as it is today.

        I said many of these things to her father. In hindsight, I probably would have avoided a lot of stress in my life if I had just lied to him and said “I’m very sorry, I have absolutely no questions as to the premarital sex doctrine you believe in.” But I couldn’t lie and pretend to repent when I had serious doubts as to the doctrine! And also, stopping having sex with my partner would have taken a monumental effort, let’s be honest. After learning more of the sex is marriage theology, I presented the ideas to him, and now he pretty much thinks I’m the Devil. But back to that first night!

        That night, after 4 hours of arguing, I prayed to God that if I was wrong in any belief, that He would show me or tell me that night, so that healing and repentance could begin. I’d say that was a prayer within His will, so I began rehashing every verse on the subject with the full expectation to come to an unconditional conclusion. I did not, however, and still had the same questions. But I decided to go to bed. About 3 seconds after closing my eyes, however, I “heard” the words that did not come from my own mind.

        “Sex is marriage.”

        I had never seen nor thought those words in my life, so if this came from myself, it was an epiphany like I’ve never had before. I think it came from God now, but at the time, I questioned its speaker. I said “God, if this is you, that’s crazy, but please tell me if this not you because I don’t want to be deceived by the Devil.” But simply thinking through every verse I had read, it all started to click. There was my answer to premarital sex, and one I had never considered before: it doesn’t exist.

        This is where the bulk of my theological revision began, with those three words. After that night, I went through every verse on marriage and looked at every argument about the subject, and after switching back and forth between vow is marriage and sex is marriage, I came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, sex that defines when all marriage begins. At the very least, this is what the Israelites thought for thousands of years.

        I have recently come across even more evidence to this fact. Namely, that oriental cultures thought the sharing of bodily fluids made the two connected permanently. For example, if one shared milk from the same breast, even if the two were not genetically brother and sister, the prevailing belief was that they became “milk” brothers. An even stronger bond, however, was made through a blood covenant. Two men (or women possibly) who were intimate friends could then decide to join together permanently. They would gather witnesses and go through a ritual (particular to the region). This ritual always involved sharing each other’s blood, either by drinking it or by smearing it into an open cut. This was believed to literally make the same blood run through each other’s veins, so this was an even closer bond that genetic brothers or milk brothers. They would then take the “walk of death,” which was a walk in between the two halves of a cut animal. They would then say a vow along the lines of “With God as my witness, just as this animal has been cut in two, so I shall be if I do not protect my blood brother.”

        In other words, they called down a curse of death onto themselves if they didn’t protect the other as themselves. Sounds quite a bit like a marriage, don’t you think? Apart from the death thing. Actually, they believed that this bond was closer than the bond of marriage. The evidence of this is in David and Jonathan’s friendship covenant. If you look at that story, you will see the similarities to this blood covenant bond. It was under pain of death as well (1 Sam 20:12).

        Compare it to marriage in that day. Though we now know this is not God’s truth, the Israelites of that day believed that one could divorce for any reason, without punishment or a curse of death. This is clearly not the same kind of blood covenant bond as between David and Jonathan, where even not sending word of danger would be enough to call down a curse. The Israelites, though a covenant was likely part of the marriage ritual, did not consider the “marriage” covenant to be nearly as binding as we think it is today.

        No, given the cultural belief that sharing bodily fluids made you one, I think it much more likely that they, and everyone else around them, simply believed that sharing sexual fluids made two into one. One flesh. This bond, like the other bodily fluid bonds, would be permanent. At least until divorce or death. Now we know that divorce is actually not truly allowed in God’s eyes, so it would seem that God honors this one flesh bond idea as being a permanent bond. “For what God has joined (past tense, completely done), let no man separate.”

        Given the wording, Jesus could be saying “don’t separate, but if you do, God thinks you’re separated too.” The disciples had this question of interpretation in their minds too: was Jesus saying that divorce was possible but forbidden? Or was He saying that divorce was impossible in God’s eyes?

        Jesus answers them, saying “He who divorces his wife, then remarries, commits adultery on his ex-wife, while a divorced wife commits adultery should she remarry.”

        Here’s the thing: you can’t commit adultery if you’re not married. Therefore, Jesus was actually saying that true divorce, or making the one flesh two again, is actually impossible, so why would you pretend to separate?

        THIS is why the disciples said “truly then, it is better not to marry.” Because they understood that Jesus was saying one flesh is permanent.

        Now back to one flesh, we can be fairly certain that marriage did not involve a blood covenant. Why? Because blood covenant siblings would be considered even closer than genetic siblings, so for two blood siblings to get married would be considered highly incestuous. So then, the one flesh bond is entirely different from the covenant of friendship that David and Jonathan took.

        Now is it possible that the blood covenant bond prevented two same sex brothers or sisters from having sex as well? I’m unsure, because the source I read for blood covenant bond rituals didn’t mention whether two men sharing sexual fluids would be considered as one flesh too. My guess is no, though, because all recorded instances of one flesh bonds happened between heterosexuals. Therefore, it’s not impossible to think that blood covenant bond did not preclude the two blood brothers or sisters having sex. This, then, could possibly lead us to the conclusion that homoerotic unions were, in fact, sanctioned and official, and indeed such unions were considered MORE permanent and fulfilling than marriage was in this day. Sounds a lot like the Greek male belief that sex with men was more fulfilling than sex with women. The only blood covenant bonds that would prevent sex would be the heterosexual brother-sister bonds, because this would produce incestuous children in their minds.

        So were David and Jonathan gay for each other? I dunno, but given the cultural background I just expounded, it is certainly possible. After all, it describes their friendship as being, basically, love at first sight. That doesn’t sound like too many of the friendships I have had. Most are developed. But it does sound a heck of a lot like a lot of the crushes I’ve had.

        Anyway, just some food for thought. I just thought it was interesting to see such a striking similarity between blood covenant bonds and marital bonds, and especially that blood covenant bonds were considered to be stronger than marriage.

        I come back to one flesh bonds now. It seems exceedingly likely that, in this day, having sex was thought to bind the two into one flesh, because of the exchange of bodily fluids. This one flesh union was meant to be expressed in a marital union, and the two were so closely entwined that they are virtually synonymous in the Israelites minds. Also, becoming one flesh was NOT the same thing as making a covenant, but was just as binding. How do we know this? There are several stories and laws that tell us so.

        For example, Tamar and Amnon in 2 Sam 13 gives us an excellent picture of the mindset of these Bronze age Israelites. We see that Amnon propositions Tamar, his sister, and that she says that this would be humiliating to her if they had sex. The wording seems to imply that she thinks it would be humiliating because they had sex before going through the appropriate marital steps, not because it was incest. Then interestingly, after Amnon rapes her, he tries to send her away, and Tamar says “No! That would be worse than what you just did to me!”

        Why would she want to stay with her rapist? Some might say because she wasn’t a virgin, it would be harder to marry off. But remember she’s a princess. I doubt rape would count much against that, even in this culture. No, I think it’s far more likely that she didn’t want to leave because they had become one flesh, and so they were bound permanently. To separate would constitute making her a widow, which would have been much more shameful than staying with her brother in that day.

        This is how far away we are morally from that day. Who today would want to stay with a brother who raped them? I’m not saying we should promote that the two marry necessarily, I bring it up because we have SO little in common with the mindset of the ancient Israelites. It is, therefore, exceedingly easy to read falsely into the Old Testament laws and culture. People say “the Bible condones rape! Therefore it must not be true!” But I say the Bible is simply being self consistent. This culture had MUCH different ideas about rape than we do, and Tamar’s reaction shows us that rape was not condoned at all, but that separating was far worse. If separating was worse, then staying together in a sexual relationship seems a lot like marriage, does it not?

        Absalom’s murder of Amnon later was largely a result of Amnon “putting away” Tamar and not staying in marriage to her. Given the cultural belief surrounding one flesh bonds, I find it unlikely that Absalom would have killed Amnon had he stayed with Tamar.

        Another good story demonstrating the culture of the day would be Jacob and Rachel’s marriage. I’ve already expounded my views on that in a previous comment, however, but I’ll just reiterate that if a vow truly makes one married, Jacob had no reason to take Leah and no reason to not just leave with Rachel. He and Rachel had already had a wedding! But without becoming one flesh, they were not united in a marriage the way we think of it. Yet Leah and he WERE one flesh and married, despite having never made any vows or covenants of any kind!

        Then when we look at Exo 22 and Deut 22, we see more evidence that having sex, out becoming one flesh, was virtually the same as making marital commitments in this day. The laws regarding sex with an unbetrothed virgin say that the man must make her his wife. This is only saying that he won’t make her a concubine. But many interpret it to mean that they weren’t yet completely married. I disagree because of the historical evidence pointing to the fact that exchange of bodily fluids always permanently bonded the two into one. If a permanent bond isn’t marriage in this case, I dunno what is.

        I think what this tells us is this: husband and wife and marriage and one flesh and sex in general meant much different things way back then than it does today. Most people are guilty of eisegesis: trying to see current sexual and marital doctrines in the Bible that simply aren’t historically accurate doctrines. If we had a time machine, our current treatment of rape victims and premarital sex partners would seem like an extremely immoral doctrine to the OT Israelites! We say it’s no big deal for premarital sex partners to later break up, but the Israelites would be abhorred by that belief. Sounds crazy, but things can change in 4000 years.

        I’ll explain what my research has uncovered about the beliefs of that day. When two became betrothed, they did indeed make a “marriage” covenant to seal the deal. But this wasn’t the same covenant that we think of today. This covenant was not nearly as permanent as the typical blood covenant, because it did not contain a “walk of death” clause, where if one person failed to uphold the marriage, they called a curse down upon themselves. If this were so, then we’d see a lot more supernaturally dead divorced widows and widowers in the Bible! No, this covenant was much more like a simple contract, and not supernatural in nature. The two would vow to become one flesh at a future date, and they would vow to reserve themselves for the other exclusively. They became husband and wife after this vow at the betrothal, but that doesn’t mean what we think it means today. They viewed the terms husband and wife as simple ownership terms. The words literally mean “man of her” and “woman of him.” They did not carry the strong connotation of sex partners as it does today. It was, instead, a lot like reserving a TV. When I reserve a TV at the store, no one else can buy that TV but me. At the point of reservation, I make a promise to buy the TV in the future. At the point of reservation, I can also say that that specific TV is “my TV.” Oh yes, I know exactly what I’m going to do with my TV when I take it home. But can I take that TV home and watch it without buying it? No! So while it is “my” TV, it isn’t REALLY my TV entirely until I purchase it. And furthermore, if some other guy comes and buys my reserved TV, that’s as good as stealing it from me, even though I technically haven’t bought it myself yet.

        The Israelites viewed betrothal as the reservation, and husband and wife simply denoted ownership of each other. So what was the buying process? Well, there was a literal exchange of money with the dowry, but that was viewed not as simply a purchase of the daughter, but more of a restitution to the daughter’s family for losing her help around the household. The real transfer of ownership was sex. They became one flesh, and until that happened, the daughter still “belonged” to her father, as we see in Rachel’s case with Jacob.

        So while marriage began at betrothal because of a vow, it was becoming one flesh at the wedding that began their true union, what we would think of as marriage today. And contrary to our belief today, they thought that becoming one flesh transferred ownership of the daughter EVEN IF it happened without any vows or weddings, as we see in Tamar’s story, Leah and Jacob’s story, and in the sex laws of Exo 22 and Deut 22.

        In short, sex is one flesh. One flesh is permanent union. Therefore, sex is marriage in the sense of how we think of marriage today. Regardless of vows. Every reference to covenants made for a marriage in the Bible can be better explained as a betrothal covenant. There are actually only 2 that refer to human marriages (Mal 2, Prov 2), and they can easily be taken to mean the Mosaic covenant, and not the marriage covenant. Yet even if they DO refer to the marriage covenant, that only refers to the betrothal stage of marriage and doesn’t refute the idea that one flesh is the truly binding part.

        Even the statements about God marrying Israel and the Church should be taken as a betrothal. For one, it’s directly stated that we are in the betrothal stage, which in Israeli culture made you “married.” But it is also stated that we will have a wedding feast in heaven where we will be united with our Groom for the first time and forever. This isn’t literal sexual union, but a union of the spirit.

        We HAVE to read into the Bible this way, because when all these statements about God marrying Israel and the Church were made, they would only have meant anything to their audience if the speaker was talking about circumstances they understood! In other words, why would Jeremiah speak about a marriage concept from 3000 years in the future? His audience would not have understood our marriage beliefs, so Jeremiah’s analogies to marriage only make sense if they are coming from the JEWISH method and doctrine of marriage. Same goes for Revelation. However, we typically take an anachronistic view of these passages and say that the Church is “engaged” to Christ in the modern sense. No no no! That makes no sense in the time period that the NT was written in. Engaged people today are still technically just courting each other. There’s no ultimate commitment. In the days of the NT though, betrothal meant a covenant of promise to become one flesh in the future. Betrothal was marriage to them, while a wedding was bodily union. So, our betrothal to Christ is PERMANENT. We aren’t dating God, we’re permanently in a covenant of marriage to Him. Who can divorce God? And when we go to heaven, THAT’S when we become truly united in spirit just as we are united in body with our marriages on Earth.

        Phew! OK, well I’m sure that leaves you with more questions than answers, but I tell you what: I’m writing a research style paper on this whole matter, so if you want, I’ll post a link to it when I finish it. It’s about 80 pages and growing so hopefully that’s thorough enough haha! One thing that’s interesting, though, is that any analogy made for the marriage between God and man cannot be an argument against homosexuality. I mean, God technically doesn’t have a gender, being a spirit, and apparently neither will we when we get to heaven, but God is not gender discriminatory when it comes to betrothal, that’s for sure! So while sexual union is the most pleasurable thing we can do with our bodies, spiritual union with God is likewise eternal bliss for our souls.

        I’ll try to answer a few of your questions. You stated that it was confusing how you’d define adultery and divorce. I’ll explain briefly.

        Divorce literally meant “to put away” or “one who should be loosing.” So divorce is any breakup and separation of one flesh partners, regardless of whether they think they’re married or not. However, divorce has the connotation of breaking the one flesh bond, which is actually impossible. So true divorce, like premarital sex, can’t actually exist. There is the possible exception of when one partner commits adultery, but even that doesn’t necessarily break the one flesh bond. It just corrupts it. The only known thing that for sure breaks the one flesh bond is death. (However, no matter how awful your spouse is, you are still forbidden to murder them :).)

        Adultery, on that note, is any time one woman becomes one flesh to two living men. We could technically also have adultery when one man becomes one flesh to two women, as is the case with polygyny, but Jesus’ wording on the matter of adultery through remarriage seems to imply that a man marrying multiple wives is legitimate, while a woman marrying many husbands is not (Mark 10:11) Why? Because genetically, it is more productive to have a man impregnating many wives, rather than a woman who doesn’t know who the father is, as is the case with polyandry.

        Now the verse I gave has many sister verses that have slightly different wording, but I believe this is what Jesus truly said. Why? Well the original Greek says “he commits adultery ON her.” Most translations take the liberty of harmonizing the Scripture by saying “he commits adultery AGAINST her,” but this is not necessarily what it means. Considering that the Gospels were written several decades after Jesus’ death, I don’t find it hard to believe that the exact wording of His sayings may have been slightly bastardized, so how do we tell which reading if this verse is accurate?

        First, it should be noted that Deut. 22, when a man has sex with a betrothed virgin, it is strongly implied that by becoming one flesh with this betrothed virgin, he commits adultery ON her. She is technically married to the rapist, but since she has promised to become one flesh with her husband, now she can’t do that without committing adultery AGAINST her rapist! This problem was simply solved by dissolving the one flesh union. How? Death of the rapist. Voila! Non-adulterous sex is possible again for the two betrothed people.

        So committing adultery ON your wife means not that you have actually committed adultery, but that the woman can’t have sex with anyone else without committing adultery AGAINST you! See the difference?

        So that’s why I think this verse is actually the correct verse, and the others are bastardized readings of Jesus. Or, possibly, Jesus says the man commits adultery upon remarriage because committing adultery ON someone else was punished just as severely as committing adultery AGAINST someone, so they are virtually the same sin.

        Understanding this, the verse reads:

        http://bible.com/107/mrk.10.11-12.net So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits the possibility of adultery UPON her, so that she cannot marry another without committing adultery AGAINST her ex-husband. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery WITH her new husband AGAINST her old one.”

        This also implies that a man who divorces and remarries is actually committing polygamy in God’s eyes, since he’s still technically married to his old wife. Seems like there are a lot of anti-polygamists out there who are actually being hypocritical by remarrying… Tsk tsk tsk.

        I also say this is the correct reading of this saying of Jesus, because if we say that a man who divorces and remarries commits adultery AGAINST his wife, it has the force of condemning polygamy as sinful, which makes God a liar in 2 Sam 12:8 for promoting polygamy. Also, this doesn’t fit with the understanding of adultery in the OT. Adultery was always understood as a man having sex with a wife who belonged to someone else, or a woman having sex with any man beside her husband.

        Jesus wasn’t modifying that belief, he was taking it even further by saying that it still applied even after divorce! Furthermore, Jesus is even implicitly saying that sex is marriage here. Why? Because one commits adultery whether they go through the marriage rituals or not. Adultery is ONLY a sexual act. Yet Jesus said specifically that one only commits adultery against an ex-spouse if one remarries. Does that mean that adultery is impossible as long as we only hookup and don’t have a wedding or a state license with our extramarital sex partner? Of course not! So Jesus is actually equating marriage and sex here. “Remarrying” in this context is almost a euphemism for all sex. Yes, there was a proper way to go about becoming married, but improperly becoming married through sex still made you married.

        Note, this actually doesn’t directly condemn having extramarital homosexual unions, because that doesn’t cause two to become one flesh. However, I doubt many married couples would appreciate having an outside sex partner nowadays, so to do so would be to cause harm, which is sin. But what is interesting is that this too doesn’t make it impossible that David and Jonathan were actually gay together, pun intended :). After all, in that culture, homosexual sex would have been entirely different than heterosexual sex. In fact, I don’t even think they would call it sex. At best, it’d be mutual masturbation. So even though David had multiple wives, it is likely that sexual relations with Jonathan wouldn’t have been counted as adultery in that time, or even true sex. In fact, David’s wives would have considered David and Jonathan’s blood covenant to be a more binding arrangement than their own marriages to David. You could divorce a wife (according to their incorrect beliefs), but a blood brother was forever.

        So to reiterate, here are my revised definitions of biblical terms regarding marriage and sex:

        To lie with: Sex. Specifically, penetrative sexual intercourse. This is usually used to imply intercourse between a man and a woman. When used in the homosexuality laws, it implies penetrative anal sex.

        One flesh: the sexual union of a man and a woman through intercourse. God binds them permanently from the first moment of sex onwards. It is impossible for homosexual unions to generate a one flesh bond (as far as I can tell), because one flesh bonds are strongly implied to necessitate the possibility of conception: a literal joining of the two into one person. This does not mean that barren eunuchs cannot become one flesh, because God can enable a barren person to be able to conceive, as we see with Abraham and Sarah. It is impossible to sever a one flesh bond except through death. This is why marriage is permanent and divorce is impossible.

        Marriage: a relationship primarily designed to codify and make official the one flesh bond. True biblical marriage is only possible between a man and a wife because only heterosexual unions can engender the one flesh bond, but that does not preclude homosexual unions from imitating marriage. The marriage relationship is not strictly equivalent to the one flesh bond, as one can, depending on cultural norms, go into a marriage relationship before becoming one flesh. This is usually preferred. When one does so, one usually enters into the marriage relationship through a covenant. Marriage, therefore, is strictly a consensual and mutual relationship in this scenario. However, though one can enter a marriage relationship before becoming one flesh, one cannot enter into a one flesh union without engendering the need for a marriage relationship. In other words, because a marriage relationship is the best place to maintain the permanence of the one flesh bond, every one who becomes one flesh MUST enter a marriage relationship, or they risk committing adultery with their next sex partners. Therefore, the obligation to commit to a marriage relationship applies even to rape victims, depending on the circumstance.

        Husband: in the Bible, man of her. It denotes ownership and is primarily a marital term. However, when one becomes one flesh, one becomes a husband by default.

        Wife: same as above but for the woman.

        Divorce: Initially, this was thought to be a separating of the one flesh bond primarily, a separation of the marriage relationship secondarily. However, Jesus clarified that though one can separate the marriage bond, only death can separate the one flesh bond back into two people, since God did the joining. Therefore, separating the marriage bond is a foolish action and is bound to cause adultery. Divorce is also committed between one flesh partners who break up, but don’t consider themselves as married.

        Adultery: primarily a term denoting improper one flesh bonding. Under the system of polygyny, it is any one flesh union of two men with one woman. If a man is one flesh with multiple women who are all only one flesh to him, this is considered acceptable by God (polygyny), and does not ever constitute adultery. It is only when a man has sex with another man’s wife (divorced or current), or when a woman has sex with someone other than her living husband (divorced or current) that adultery is committed.

        Premarital sex: is popularly defined as sex between two unmarried people. However, because one cannot technically avoid a permanent marital commitment when one has sex, this is a misleading term. All heterosexual sex is marital in God’s eyes. A better definition of the term would be “having sex before the appropriate marital rituals have occurred.”

        Fornication: the term denotes currently denotes “sex between unmarried persons.” However, this is misleading because its original definition would have been more similar to “any illicit sexual activity.” This is the definition that the King James Bible translators understood. Therefore, all uses of the word today should be replaced with “sexual immorality.”

        Homosexual marriage: is also a slightly misleading term Biblically. Homosexual marriage would have been considered impossible in those days because of the inability to become one flesh. However, the current use of the term simply denotes a permanent relationship of love and sex between two persons of the same gender. Barring an outright ban on this kind of behavior in the Bible, this is a condoned and even beneficial relationship. Biblically, it would be more accurate terminology to call this kind of union a “blood covenant friendship,” similar in nature to the friendship shared by David and Jonathan (though theirs wasn’t necessarily sexual in nature).

        I hope this helps you understand where I’m coming from! And I especially hope it helps you to view the Bible in a light closer to the time of its writing! We view marriage through a 21st century A.D. lense, and so it is nearly impossible to come to accurate conclusions on what the Bible says about sex unless we put on our 21st century B.C. and 50 A.D. lenses on.

        Now with regards to the rest of your comment, about Eunuchs. I completely agree with you. The word eunuch, similarly to the word fornication, has vastly narrowed in meaning today. Today it means someone who is infertile, usually through castration. But you’re right. Jesus mentions three categories of eunuchs, and in His day, a eunuch was defined much more broadly as anyone who was incapable of or unwilling to fertilize.

        Now, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Jesus was condoning the homosexuality He saw in Rome, because it was largely pederasty. But it is possible that He was carefully wording what might have been a controversial statement in His day: that not all homosexuality is sinful. Why would it have been controversial? Because to just condone homosexuality would seem to be condoning pederasty in His day.

        And in regards to your statements on the definition of malakos and arsenokoitai, I actually think it is likely that it DID in fact refer to the receiver and giver of male homosexual acts, respectively. But that doesn’t necessarily condemn all homosexuality. Why? Well first of all, if this does refer to homosexuality, it strongly implies that Paul is speaking only on male homosexuality. This is odd, considering that he’s listing off sins that prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God. Why would God dislike male homosexuality and not female? There’s the argument that this is a duality statement, but Paul was pretty specific about men and women engaged in idolatrous homosexual acts in Romans 1. So why the silence here? If all homosexuality was banned, male and female, there were words for that in the Greek. Why didn’t God inspired Paul to use words that would have CLEARLY condemned all homosexuality, and not just idolatrous homosexuality and these two words, malakos and arsenokoitai? Maybe, just maybe, it’s because Paul never intended to condemn all homosexuality in his letters and epistles. Just like he never condemned all heterosexuality by saying celibacy is better than marriage.

        If Paul, then, is not talking about all homosexuality, then what IS he referring to? It must’ve been pretty easy to get what he was talking about, since he didn’t bother explaining his coined term. But it’s pretty obvious he’s talking about SOME kind of homosexual act. Now let’s put the two together. What homosexual act was common during the time of Paul that would have been easy to recognize as sinful?

        Pederasty. What was uncommon was consensual adult homosexual relationships. For Paul to refer to those, he would have needed a bit more explanation, but then again he wouldn’t have needed to condemn it because that action didn’t really exist in large numbers. Now note this: Consensual homosexual sex between adults was so vanishingly uncommon because of the common beliefs of the day. Namely, that there was no sexual orientation. Instead, there was simply the submissive act of being penetrated and the dominant act of penetration. When one became a man, it was widely considered shameful to be penetrated. However, while still a young boy, it was common to take on an older adult male lover. This relationship was known as pederasty, or boy-love. In fact, the boy was culturally supposed to play hard to get, much as a woman would, while the man was supposed to court the boy and give him gifts and win him over. After they became a couple, the man would teach the boy much as a private tutor would. They would have sex, but the man was always dominant, while the boy was always submissive and was penetrated. After the