Homosexuality in the Bible? – An alternative perspective

Posted on August 2, 2010 by moanti (moe·on·tee)

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/

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. Shelli Orillion says:
    August 31, 2010 at 8:52 am

    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.

    Reply
  2. Clarence Medlin says:
    September 1, 2010 at 4:33 pm

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

    Reply
  4. personal loan says:
    September 12, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    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.

    Reply
  7. Chantelle Koger says:
    December 13, 2011 at 4:49 pm

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

    Reply

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

  9. Joe says:
    March 27, 2012 at 2:39 am

    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!

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      April 20, 2012 at 11:46 pm

      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!

      Reply
  10. chris says:
    June 28, 2012 at 11:21 am

    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/

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      September 11, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      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

      Reply
  11. angie says:
    January 21, 2013 at 3:50 pm

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

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

    Reply

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. nina says:
    June 13, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    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.

    Reply
  16. Scott says:
    July 3, 2013 at 11:35 am

    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!

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 5, 2013 at 11:36 am

      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.

      Reply
  17. Scott says:
    July 3, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 5, 2013 at 12:58 pm

      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!

      Reply
    • angela says:
      July 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm

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

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

      Reply

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

  19. angela says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:08 am

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 31, 2013 at 1:26 pm

      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

      Reply
  21. moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
    December 22, 2013 at 2:24 am

    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…

    Reply
  23. Angela says:
    February 2, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    What doesn’t shakab can also mean consent sex

    Reply
  24. Angela says:
    February 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    Sorry can’t shakab also mean consent sex

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      February 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm

      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. 🙂

      Reply
      • Angela says:
        February 3, 2014 at 11:17 pm

        Doesn’t it also matter what shakab is connected

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        February 4, 2014 at 12:32 am

        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

    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      February 3, 2014 at 11:59 pm

      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

      Reply
      • Angela says:
        February 5, 2014 at 12:06 am

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

  26. moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
    February 5, 2014 at 2:05 am

    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!

    Reply
  27. jjduncan2 says:
    February 16, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    “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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      February 16, 2014 at 4:26 pm

      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

      Reply
      • TREVOR says:
        February 18, 2014 at 6:57 pm

        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.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        February 18, 2014 at 7:48 pm

        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:
        February 18, 2014 at 6:58 pm

        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:
        February 18, 2014 at 7:09 pm

        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.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        February 18, 2014 at 8:15 pm

        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.)

  28. TREVOR says:
    February 18, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    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.

    Reply
  29. TREVOR says:
    February 18, 2014 at 6:52 pm

    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.

    Reply
  30. Hannah says:
    February 24, 2014 at 6:06 am

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

    Reply
  31. Ieva says:
    March 7, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    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

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      March 10, 2014 at 5:57 pm

      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

      Reply
      • Ieva says:
        March 12, 2014 at 3:38 pm

        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

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        March 12, 2014 at 7:46 pm

        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

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        March 12, 2014 at 8:44 pm

        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:
        March 13, 2014 at 1:20 am

        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

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        March 13, 2014 at 2:53 am

        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.

  32. Ieva says:
    March 7, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    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 🙂

    Reply
    • Angela says:
      March 12, 2014 at 4:41 pm

      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

      Reply
  33. Ieva says:
    March 14, 2014 at 2:55 am

    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

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      March 14, 2014 at 3:27 pm

      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

      Reply
  34. Top Gun says:
    March 18, 2014 at 7:16 am

    “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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      March 19, 2014 at 8:49 pm

      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

      Reply
  35. Top Gun says:
    March 22, 2014 at 2:47 am

    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

    Reply
    • Top Gun says:
      March 22, 2014 at 2:52 am

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

      Reply
      • Angela says:
        April 19, 2014 at 8:51 pm

        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

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        April 21, 2014 at 11:09 am

        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

    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      March 29, 2014 at 7:58 pm

      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

      Reply
      • Top Gun says:
        April 19, 2014 at 8:12 pm

        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.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        April 20, 2014 at 1:57 am

        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

  36. Gary says:
    April 17, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    Moanti,

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

    Gary

    Reply
  37. Gary says:
    April 18, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    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

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      April 19, 2014 at 3:00 pm

      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

      Reply
      • Gary says:
        April 20, 2014 at 12:05 pm

        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

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        April 21, 2014 at 8:57 am

        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:
        April 21, 2014 at 9:24 pm

        Give me a few days to consider that.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        May 10, 2014 at 8:42 pm

        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:
      May 13, 2014 at 9:36 pm

      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.

      Reply
  38. Top Gun says:
    April 19, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    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.

    Reply
  39. scottsunday says:
    May 18, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    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.)

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      May 21, 2014 at 9:35 am

      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… 😉

      Reply
  40. anonymous57 says:
    May 25, 2014 at 8:30 am

    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,

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      May 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm

      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

      Reply
  41. Xavier says:
    May 26, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      May 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm

      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…

      Reply
    • Angela says:
      May 28, 2014 at 7:12 pm

      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

      Reply
  42. Xavier says:
    May 28, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      May 29, 2014 at 2:46 am

      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.

      Reply
  43. Xavier says:
    May 28, 2014 at 11:20 pm

    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!! 🙂

    Reply
  44. Xavier says:
    May 31, 2014 at 9:30 am

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      May 31, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      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!

      Reply
  45. Xavier says:
    May 31, 2014 at 9:36 am

    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! 🙂

    Reply
  46. Gary says:
    June 1, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    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?

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      June 1, 2014 at 4:19 pm

      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!

      Reply
  47. Xavier says:
    June 1, 2014 at 10:48 pm

    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.. ^^

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      June 3, 2014 at 8:56 am

      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:

      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

      Reply
      • Xavier says:
        June 3, 2014 at 11:34 am

        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:
        June 3, 2014 at 4:32 pm

        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:
        June 4, 2014 at 9:28 am

        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.

  48. Top Gun says:
    June 2, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • Angela says:
      June 2, 2014 at 9:06 pm

      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.

      Reply
      • Top Gun says:
        June 2, 2014 at 9:23 pm

        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:
      June 2, 2014 at 9:08 pm

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

      Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      June 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm

      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

      Reply
      • Top Gun says:
        June 5, 2014 at 8:35 am

        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:
        June 5, 2014 at 8:46 am

        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.

  49. SA says:
    June 3, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    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

    Reply
  51. Gary says:
    June 3, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 7, 2014 at 5:27 pm

      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

      Reply
      • Gary says:
        August 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm

        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

  52. moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
    June 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    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

    Reply
    • Angela says:
      June 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm

      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.

      Reply
    • Xavier says:
      June 5, 2014 at 12:20 am

      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.

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        June 5, 2014 at 1:05 am

        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

  53. Xavier says:
    June 5, 2014 at 1:39 am

    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..

    Reply
  54. Xavier says:
    June 5, 2014 at 2:32 am

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      June 5, 2014 at 3:31 am

      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

      Reply
  55. Xavier says:
    June 5, 2014 at 4:52 am

    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.

    Reply
  56. Xavier says:
    June 5, 2014 at 8:39 am

    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.

    Reply
  57. Gary says:
    June 5, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • Xavier says:
      June 6, 2014 at 12:34 am

      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.

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        June 6, 2014 at 3:40 am

        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

  58. Xavier says:
    June 6, 2014 at 8:52 am

    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.

    Reply
  59. Top Gun says:
    June 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    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

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      June 10, 2014 at 12:15 pm

      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.

      Reply
  60. Gary says:
    June 8, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Xavier,

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

    Reply
    • Xavier says:
      June 8, 2014 at 2:56 pm

      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.

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        June 8, 2014 at 4:11 pm

        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:
        June 8, 2014 at 8:07 pm

        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!

  61. Gary says:
    June 9, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • Top Gun says:
      June 10, 2014 at 6:39 am

      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.

      Reply
  62. Xavier says:
    June 10, 2014 at 9:59 am

    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.

    Reply
  63. Angela says:
    June 13, 2014 at 8:43 am

    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.

    Reply
    • Xavier says:
      June 13, 2014 at 9:15 am

      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.

      Reply
      • Xavier says:
        June 13, 2014 at 9:28 am

        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:
      June 13, 2014 at 10:29 am

      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.

      Reply
  64. Anthony says:
    June 4, 2015 at 10:01 am

    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.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      June 4, 2015 at 7:47 pm

      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!

      Reply
  65. Anthony says:
    June 5, 2015 at 6:13 am

    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….

    Reply
  66. Anthony says:
    June 5, 2015 at 7:55 am

    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..

    Reply
    • Angela says:
      June 9, 2015 at 11:37 pm

      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

      Reply
  67. Anthony says:
    June 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    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.

    Reply
  68. Gary says:
    June 18, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    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

    Reply
    • Anthony says:
      June 19, 2015 at 5:22 am

      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

      Reply
      • A says:
        June 19, 2015 at 9:52 am

        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}

  69. A says:
    June 19, 2015 at 9:54 am

    .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

    Reply
  70. A says:
    June 19, 2015 at 9:55 am

    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

    Reply
    • Anthony says:
      June 19, 2015 at 11:07 am

      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.

      Reply
  71. Anthony says:
    June 19, 2015 at 11:55 am

    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.

    Reply
  72. A says:
    June 19, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    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

    Reply
    • Anthony says:
      June 19, 2015 at 3:42 pm

      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.

      Reply
  73. Gary says:
    June 19, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • Anthony says:
      June 20, 2015 at 3:19 am

      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.

      Reply
  74. Gary says:
    June 20, 2015 at 6:32 pm

    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

    Reply
  75. X..... says:
    June 21, 2015 at 8:59 am

    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.

    Reply
  76. Gary says:
    June 21, 2015 at 8:04 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • X..... says:
      June 22, 2015 at 3:05 am

      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 :

      Is Homosexuality a Sin in Romans 1?

      And here, mostly :

      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.

      Reply
  77. John R says:
    June 29, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    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.

    Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      June 30, 2015 at 2:46 am

      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.

      Reply
      • A says:
        June 30, 2015 at 12:18 pm

        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:
        July 1, 2015 at 7:48 am

        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.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 2, 2015 at 12:32 am

        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:
        July 1, 2015 at 11:57 am

        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.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 1, 2015 at 12:47 pm

        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:
        July 1, 2015 at 3:25 pm

        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.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 1, 2015 at 7:36 pm

        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:
        July 2, 2015 at 2:49 am

        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,

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 4, 2015 at 5:44 am

        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:
        July 4, 2015 at 11:09 am

        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…..

    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 1, 2015 at 6:47 pm

      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

      Reply
      • John R says:
        July 3, 2015 at 12:00 am

        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:
        July 5, 2015 at 12:27 am

        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:
        July 5, 2015 at 1:53 pm

        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:
        July 6, 2015 at 6:29 pm

        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:
        July 7, 2015 at 12:06 pm

        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!

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 8, 2015 at 8:02 pm

        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:
        July 10, 2015 at 2:27 pm

        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 boy could grow a full beard, at around 17, they were expected to end the relationship, and the boy was supposed to then turn around and continue the cycle, but as the dominant penetrative partner. The very word we use for the male genitalia, penis, comes from the same root belief that men are only supposed to PENItrate with their PENIs.

        Now how many people think about this cultural fact when they read into the Bible? Not many, I would imagine. The result of this cycle is that the boys were forever effeminate in the sense that, even if they were heterosexual, they didn’t really fulfill their marriage duties as the dominant partner. Nowadays, we know how damaging something like this relationship can be for a heterosexual OR a homosexual. Clearly, this was not the best of situations for anyone.

        So what did Paul mean with malakos, or soft one? The most likely candidate is the boy in this pederastic relationship, considering they would literally rub lotions in to make their skin softer, and they generally acted effeminately. And what would arsenokoitai refer to? Man-beds. A man in many beds. While this could refer to prostitution, I think, considering that malakos likely refers to the boy, that manbeds refers to the older man in the pederastic relationship. Why? Because this man would take on many such boys in the course of his lifetime. A man in many beds, or perhaps a man who beds many “malakos.”

        Now why would Paul also condemn the boy in this relationship? It seems like they didn’t much have a choice. But they did. After all, this was between heterosexuals AND homosexuals. Some of them were likely repulsed by the idea, but went along with it because of culture. And either way, just because culture tells you to do something, that’s never a good excuse for doing it. Even the homosexual boys could have refused to have sex with a man who was 20 or 30 years older than them. It’s just weird and harmful! Rape was strongly condemned in Rome, so for a boy to have sex with a man legally, the boy had to consent. Consent is a choice, and that’s why Paul condemns the boys too.

        So just an alternative opinion. I’m by no means saying this is the absolute truth, just that it COULD be worth thinking about.

        So, knowing this, would Paul condone the homosexual marriages he sees today? I tell you one thing, he would NOT approve of the way the Church is relying on the government to do their dirty work. Remember how harshly he condemned the church who settled disputes in the Roman court, instead of settling within the church? If a church has an issue with gay marriage, they can deal with it in their own church, without trying to take away the rights of those with other religious beliefs. Paul never said “Why aren’t you lobbying the Roman emperor to ban gay unions?!” The only words he said regarding Roman government was that one should follow its laws. That doesn’t sound at all like most churches today with regards to this issue.

        Now in my own opinion, I would say that Paul’s highest priority was first the worship of God. Of course, this necessitated following Jesus. But Paul’s second biggest priority was keeping the law of love at the forefront of our actions, above circumcision, above being a Gentile or Jew, above being a meat eater or a vegetarian, above any silly disputes or cultural boundaries. Above all of that, our greatest priority is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we took away all of the Bible except for that sentence, none of our actions should change towards our neighbor. Therefore, if there is an action or law that seems to cause harm to our neighbor, I would bet a million bucks Paul would be OUTRAGED. Paul would condemn the Church for its harm to the homosexual community FAR more than he would condemn homosexuality, and I’m not saying he would even condemn homosexuality!

        Paul was largely silent on non-idolatrous homosexual acts or non-pederastic acts. Would he give a blanket ban on homosexuality? I highly doubt it, given that it seems to be impossible to change and condemning it only produces harm. I don’t think Paul’s understanding of what was sinful and what wasn’t would allow for such a condemnation of what he would see today in Christian homosexual marriages. And Paul himself stated that many laws in the OT are no longer applicable today!

        The biggest proof of all is this, though: in 1 Cor 7:25 onwards, Paul essentially says this. “God wants you to remain as you are, so that you do not become burdened. If God called you as x, then seek to remain as x and do not change.” Paul is speaking largely on sexual matters, but he states that this applies to careers as well. If one is called as a fisherman, then remain a fisherman. So does this not also apply to homosexuals? If a homosexual cannot change their nature and they are engaged in a happy relationship, then if God calls them while in a homosexual relationship, they should remain in a homosexual relationship. This is so that their heart remains unburdened by celibacy, and so they can minister to other homosexuals who do NOT believe in Christ and who are promiscuous.

        Now I wanted to clarify one thing from my last comment: I basically stated that we can’t be too quick to say that everything in the Bible is from God, and that anything that produces harm can’t be from God, including laws in the Bible. I would moderate that statement with this: the Devil ALWAYS tempts us with half truths mixed with lies. He’ll use the Bible and mix it around and tell us, “did God REALLY say that?” Like he did with Eve in the garden. Or he’ll find a loophole and not give us the bigger picture, like when he tried Jesus to throw Himself off the mountain. Yes, Jesus faith would allow Him to be saved, BUT we should not needlessly and foolishly tempt God. So when I suggest that we test even the Bible itself against the Golden Rule, the law of love, I must admonish all who so so to ask for wisdom first, and only dismiss Scripture as false after MUCH praying and studying. Furthermore, we should be extremely hesitant to make any judgements that we would be biased towards. This is why we need communities of Christians. For example, Moanti, you have a strong bias to want homosexuality to be okay, because it personally affects you. Your judgements on the issue are therefore hard to remain unbiased. I on the other hand, have no inclination towards the opposite sex, NOR do I have any trace of homophobia, and so my judgements are more likely to be without bias. Likewise, because of my situation with my wife and her father, I have a strong inclination towards bias regarding how I read into heterosexual sex laws. You, Moanti, are free from bias on that issue, and so I greatly value your opinions on the matter. In this way, hopefully we will be free from temptation from the Devil and we will arrive at God’s truth through humble interpretation of the Scripture.

        I would like to hear your reactions to this, Moanti. I know you’re busy, so don’t feel too rushed :).

        Your brother in Christ,
        John R

        P.S. even the term brother and sister in Christ implies the belief that when one shares either bodily fluids or the same Spirit, that it joins the two permanently. We are brother and sister because we share the same Spirit.
        P.P.S. I want to clarify one misconception that is widely believed: In Ephesians 5:32, we see that Paul calls marriage a mystery, and then that Christ’s marriage to the Church is like human marriage. So Pastors take that saying and commonly day “the sanctity of marriage is a mystery! That’s why sex is only okay within a marriage!”

        First of all, that conclusion is drawn from nowhere, as that is not the context of the passage. Second of all, it shows an anachronistic application of the word “mystery.” Mystery today means “knowledge that is unknown and must be discovered.” So it seems to imply that Paul had NO idea how a marriage worked. Let me tell you, Paul understood marriage and its inner workings, or he wouldn’t have been able to minister to married people. Marriage is simple. A man loves a woman. They have sex. A lot. What’s mysterious about that?

        The true meaning of this verse becomes clear if one simply looks up the GREEK definition of mystery. A mystery is “knowledge that is knowable, but must be made known through divine means.”

        Ahhhhh, that makes more sense. In fact, a Greek mystery can’t be a mystery until AFTER you discover what it means. So Paul is simply saying that marriage is a mystery because Christ has revealed through His divine words that human marriage is an analogy for His relationship to us. This was important theologically because it legitimized the Christian faith, because the last divine marriage between God and man was exclusively with Israel. K Pastors? K.

        This kind of misconception is why it is SO important to understand the historical context and the connotations of words in their original language. Thank God for interlinear Bibles!

        P.P.P.S. I just went through your comment again, so a couple of things I forgot to reply to:

        I have actually read those gotquestions articles before, and I respectfully disagree with them on certain issues. I think the polygamy one does a good job of being fair to all sides, but ultimately, without a direct condemnation of polygamy, it all comes down to “does out cause harm?” For me, though I believe polygamy is not sinful, for me to take on another wife would be harmful to my first one, because she in no way is willing to share the love lol! That is probably the case with all first world marriages. But for some countries, polygamy is beneficial to society.

        With regards to concubines, I think gotquestions starts off on a false premise, that concubines were no more than sex slaves. Read Judges 19, and you’ll see a Levite, the priestly tribe, a man who would know the law backwards and forwards, take a concubine. Then, he goes to her father’s house, and her father is called his father in law and the Levite is called the concubine’s husband! If that’s not proof that concubines were considered legitimate wives in the sense that we think of wives, I dunno what is. They may not have been technically “married” under Jewish custom, but they were one flesh, and that bond was permanent. In all shape form and fashion, they were married in the sense that we think of the term. The only difference between a concubine and a wife is that the wife’s children could inherit property, and the wife had the legal right to divorce her husband.

        You also mention that there is no overt condemnation of homosexual marriage in the Bible, and that it would have been known to Paul and the apostles because of the emperor Nero’s marriage, so this omission is curious. I actually haven’t thought of that! You’re right in saying that it definitely wasn’t an unknown concept. I would just say that there are no mentions of homosexual marriage happening in the Bible, and with all the stories we see, you’d think we would find at least one example.

        I’d say the problem isn’t that homosexual unions didn’t happen: if they happen today, they happened yesterday, for “there is nothing new under the sun.” I think that you’re going to have a hard time finding homosexual marriage in ancient texts because that terminology didn’t exist. As I said earlier, I don’t think the people of ancient Israel would have considered a one flesh union to be possible without it being between a man and a woman, so homosexual marriage would have been something like saying “a virgin daiquiri.” It’s like, without the alcohol it’s not even the same drink, because there’s no chance for getting drunk, so might as well call it by a different name.

        That’s a weak example but it’s hard to think of a better one haha. The point is, I think if you do some research on oriental blood covenants, you might find evidence of blood brothers and sisters engaging in sexual relations within a marriage-like relationship. The thing is, most texts I’ve found have been written by conservative Christian authors, and so they aren’t likely to make mention of any homoerotic tendencies between blood brothers. So you have to dig deeply to find any evidence. Let me know if you undertake that line of research though! Any evidence you find helps me out. I’m busy writing about primarily heterosexual unions right now, so this is something of a side interest for me at the moment. My tendency to write much longer comments than I mean to leaves me with little time to engage this subject any more than I already am. I hope my opinions are helpful though!

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 11, 2015 at 7:14 pm

        Hi there John,
        I certainly think your proposed idea is interesting. However, I would still do a bit more research to solidify this. Here are a few challenging verses that might question your hypothesis. (Forgive me if you already made mention of them.)
        Exodus 22:16,17
        “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. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.”
        Verse 16 appears to show a clear separation between the sex aspect and the consideration of “making her his wife.” Also for verse 17, according to your premise, the woman would be already married the the man regardless of the fathers approval. But then again, this is Old Testament custom, and I don’t think this is repeated or clarified in the New Testament, but it might still fall under an unlawful divorce had Jesus said something about it. But this is just speculation.

        John 4:16-18
        16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’;18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”
        Now it would seem that Jesus is speaking to a woman who has had [esches ἔσχες] (past tense) five husbands, but the man she now has [echeis ἔχεις] (present tense) is not her husband. It is by the word echeis ἔχεις that is to “have” or “possess.” So if she possesses a man now that is not her husband, what might this mean? Of course most looking in the frame of mind against pre-marital sex would say she’s having sex with him before marriage, possibly even living with him as a live-in sex partner. But if we look at it in the mind frame of “sex is marriage,” you would have to convince the audience that the man she has or possesses is not in any way connected to her sexually. So why would Jesus bring him up had it been just a brotherly friend? And how does a woman “possess” a man unless they belonged to each other carnally? It would seem a harder argument to make.

        1 Corinthians 6:15,16
        “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

        This verse came to mind, but I suppose you could argue that Paul is reminding believers that if they sleep with a prostitute, then they are married to that prostitute. What do you think?

        I still think that the covenant is key. If it is not what makes one married, it’s still what I would say keeps one married. The marriage covenant of promise to remain faithful and stay together for life is a part of every enduring marriage. Without the promise of commitment, one would not be actively married and subject to divorce or adultery. When you give the analogy about the TV, I think most would say it’s the other way around, that you’re watching the TV without purchase. But I feel that in your case, if you and your partner are joined together as one flesh and you intend to marry her (in the eyes of the law), then it would seem you are already married in God’s eyes, unless He doesn’t recognize non-government binding marriages (which to me is doubtful.) I would say that it is truly between you, your partner and God, and the covenant promise that you have made between each other to stay together.

        Personally, this phrase “sex is marriage” is not foreign to me. Although I’ve not Biblically considered it as you have, this same phrase has rung in my head too. Ironically, not having to do with women, but when I was attempting to be heterosexual. My ex-boyfriend and I were virgins when we came together, and I also had “sex is marriage” in my head. And this has made me think before, if that phrase is true, than does this mean he is my husband in the eyes of God and now his current wife is actually like adultery to God? Or does my lesbian union count as “porneai” so he is free in the eyes of God? It’s a weird thought honestly. Haha. But I have thought that before…. Now at the time when he and I were together, I also didn’t feel any guilt, but this is because of my mind state that “it might help me not be a lesbian.” Had I known that sexual orientation cannot be willingly changed in the mind, looking back, I wish I had not done it. My partner has not “known a man” but I’ve known a few (and women) so, I feel I shouldn’t have. I would have rather saved myself for her, but what’s done is done. Now had I stayed with my ex-boyfriend and gone on to legally married him, I would be fine with your premise and had no later guilt even though we weren’t legally married at the time we did this. So I guess “sex is marriage” is really MORE conservative of a view than anti-pre-marital sex view, because it lifts up the huge importance of what sex is designed for, that one cannot simply “have sex” and be free to go on their way later on. They have bound themselves to that person and should fulfill their duty for life, lest they cause them self and the other to commit adultery. So maybe you’re right…. If it’s true, then one should stay with their first sex-partner until death.

        But going back to John 4:16-18, if the only legal marriage in the eyes of God for the woman is the first male sex-partner (unless separated by death), than the woman in this verse would have had to have all 5 of her husbands die until she went on to the next, otherwise they would not have been her “husbands” but rather 4 would be considered “adulterers” along with her. But then what would be the difference between an adulterer and a fornicator (porneai) and a prostitute? The prostitute we may be able to distinguish as they either take money for sex or do it for idolatrous religious reasons…. But what distinguishes an adulterer from a fornicator? This must be studied in depth, namely, the difference between adultery and porneai. As you said, one cannot commit adultery unless they are married. So what makes one able to commit porneai if sex = marriage? What exactly is porneai? I know this is a controversial topic with multiple views. But I think you need to study this portion in depth to see if you still form the same conclusion. Would this only apply to the discovery of sex with someone else during the betrothal period before sex with the intended martial partner? But if sex IS marriage, than one could not “divorce” one that they were not married to. I think it’s more confusing because of the unknown definition of porneia… You might find this article helpful, as it gives all the varied arguments for porneia: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=honors

        I find it interesting that males are allowed multiple wives, but wives not allowed multiple husbands. I obviously understand the procreative aspects, but looking deeper, it seems there are a few examples of a man “uncovering the nakedness” of his kin by having sex with their wives. Like when a man has sex with his fathers wife, it says he has “uncovered his fathers nakedness.” So somehow the man having sex with his step-mother is like having sex with his dad in a way, if that’s what “uncovering nakedness” means…. Consider these verses:

        Leviticus 18:7
        ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.” Interestingly enough, the wording here seems to suggest that the biggest problem with a man having sex with his own mother is more abhorrent because it has “uncovered the nakedness of his father.” If it had just said “this is your fathers wife and your own mother,” it wouldn’t seem as strange. But it seems that by having sex with one, it is indirectly “uncovering the nakedness” of whoever else has had them.
        Leviticus 20:21
        ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They will be childless.” This presents the same idea, that by taking the brothers wife, it uncovered the brothers nakedness, like an unlawful mixing of the two which caused it to be incestuous. Incest would seem to be about blood relation, but these seem to extend it. But here’s an interesting verse:
        Leviticus 18:10
        “The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours.”
        Obviously we can see that granddaughters would be of blood relation… But interesting that it’s worded “their nakedness is yours,” as it doesn’t show up in any other passage. Here is also another interesting one:
        Leviticus 18:18
        “‘You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.” Yet we see that he can marry the sister once she is dead. So in this case, it does seem to suggest that it’s not inherently wrong for a sister to be with her sisters husband once she’s passed. It’s not written that she has “uncovered her sisters nakedness.” So with respect to there NOT being duality here, it seems that the bigger problem is men lying with a woman who has had another man who is related to them. It could be broader speculated that sleeping with a woman who has been with any other man is like the current man “uncovering the nakedness” of the other man. But yet it seems okay for women to mix, especially considering a man with multiple wives having sex with all of them would be like the woman indirectly “uncovering the nakedness” of her husbands wives. But I say this reluctantly, because in regards to homosexuality, this idea of the condemnation of “indirect contact” would seem to condemn male homosexuality and not female homosexuality (namely, because men could have multiple wives but women not allowed multiple husbands.) Which still doesn’t seem proper or fair….. Perhaps I’ve opened up a can of worms with this topic. :/ But then again, no phrase of “uncovering so-and-so’s nakedness” exists where it’s not talking about sex within the family, wether it be blood relation or by marriage. We know one is commanded not to sleep with their neighbors wife. But still it never says the phrase that by doing so they have “uncovered their neighbors nakedness.” So it seems to only pertain to incestuous situations. Phew! Haha!

        Now in regards to blood and covenants…. I’ve never looked into blood covenants between people. But we know the most important of all is Jesus’ blood covenant with us. In fact, I have done some very interesting study into the ancient Hebrew language which shows that each letter has significant meaning and all points towards Jesus as our Savior. This may seem like a side note, but I will connect it to what we are talking about shortly. But first I need to explain a few things. Remember when Jesus said “I am the alpha and omega?” Well these are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. But when we see this in regards to Hebrew, it says so much more. The first letter in the Hebrew alephbet is “Aleph” and the last is “Tav.” When we look to the ancient Hebrew letters, the Aleph is a picture of a bull’s head and the Tav is a literal picture of 2 crossed sticks in the form of a cross. When we study the ancient meaning, this gets even deeper. Symbolically from the visual letters, we can see how the bull’s head could represent the Old Covenant animal sacrificial system. Then of course looking at the 2 crossed sticks, it is clearly as a cross, which represents the New Covenant of Jesus sacrifice on the cross. This gets more detailed when we look to the original meaning of each letter, as it goes beyond phonetical or even the picture it represents. The letter Aleph means God, strong, power and/or leader. The letter Tav means cross, covenant, mark, monument, sign, and/or signal. So when we put letters together into a Hebrew word, we can often derive it’s literal meaning and it’s symbolic meaning by looking to these ancient letter meanings to discern what it means. As an example, the Hebrew word for truth is אֱמֶת emet. It’s comprised from the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alephbet which represents all encompassing truth. The middle letter Mem can mean mighty, blood, water and/or chaos. With this in mind, we could define the underlying hidden meaning of TRUTH as “God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross!” This definition fits, as one can insert this into any Bible verse with the word “truth” and it speaks the truth. Here are a few examples:

        “and you will know (God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross), and (God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross) will set you free.” – John 8:32. ‘Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and (God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross), and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”‘ -John 14:6 They exchanged (God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross) for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:25 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in (God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross).” -John 4:24

        So all of these show how truth is literally God’s mighty blood covenant on the cross which points all truth to His covenant with us! Amazing stuff! So now looking at marriage, the word for marriage in the Bible is עֹנַת. Hebrew reads from right to left, so the first letter to consider is ע. In the ancient script, this is an eye. It means to know, watch, discern, or understand. The middle letter is נַ which in original script is a seed and means son, continue, and/or heir. The last letter is ת which again is 2 crossed sticks and means cross, covenant, monument, mark, sign and/or signal. So looking at these 3 fit together, we have a few different possibilities for meaning. Now if “to know” for ע could be taken in a sexual sense, then it’s interesting that this is the first letter, showing that sex comes first. I think נַ can have several meanings. Obviously in the procreative sense, it all makes sense. But we know that not all marriages are procreative. So the word “continue” could also apply to what’s being said of the last letter ת which is a “covenant.” So for defining marriage based on ancient Hebrew word meanings, it is “to know (each other carnally) and continue in the covenant.” Also, for procreative definition, “to know (eachother carnally) and produce heirs within the covenant. So I think that overall, the covenant is what makes marriage enduring and can’t be forgotten or thrown out. It’s at least what makes a good marriage I would say. It’s a promise to stay together, which you and your partner have done! So despite there being no wedding and state marriage license, your promise to each other IS the covenant. So even if sex = marriage, the way that God defines the ideal marriage is one that involves a covenant promise of continued commitment. So literally then, sex with a continued covenant. Then maybe perhaps sex without the continued covenant is porneai? Too bad there is no ancient Hebrew equivelent to that word or we might be able to crack the code! Haha!

        Please tell me what you think…. I also value your unbiased opinion on my own studies. Thanks!!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        P.S. If you’re interested to know more of my Hebrew letter studies, I’ve got the letter formula key and what I’ve found within this link: 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/

      • A says:
        July 11, 2015 at 7:21 pm

        Well Jesus did show God wanted us to be monogamy. Each man to his own wife.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 12, 2015 at 2:50 am

        Hi Angela (and a note to John R),
        Thanks for your comments recently! 🙂 Also thanks for reminding me about the Deuteronomy connection a few weeks ago! I would have to agree with you that indeed Jesus promoted monogamous marriage. I think what John is trying to propose is that sex itself is the defining moment in which someone is considered married in the eyes of God. But I feel that the covenantal agreement is very key to this and it is more than just being with someone sexually, even if sex was the beginning aspect. And with an afterthought for John, the verses where Jesus says that whoever re-marries commits adultery, this might suggest that sex cannot on it’s own be a marriage, because even the male (who could previously take on multiple wives under Old Testament custom) is considered to be committing adultery if he marries another woman. So if a man can commit adultery against his first wife by marrying another (even if she remains without a new husband), than this would show that a man can no longer take on a second wife, as the marriage to the first wife is not considered absolved (by death or porneia) even when the partners have agreed to leave each other. To God, the first couple is still married and any other attempt to “marry” is just considered adulterous. (Note that I am only speaking by the requirements of Biblical law and I am not suggesting that couples in this situation cannot be fully forgiven by God, as Jesus came for this very reason to cleanse us from our sins!) So this verse may discredit the possibility that all sex equals marriage (or at the least discredit modern Biblical support for polygamy), otherwise the one he marries second would just be considered another wife to him if it were still lawful.

        Perhaps also we should look to Mary and Joseph, who had not yet had sex, yet when Joseph saw that Mary was pregnant, he had planned to “divorce her quietly.” Just as one can’t commit adultery against a spouse unless they are married, one cannot divorce a spouse unless they are considered married. Also, looking at the difference between what was considered a wife and a concubine, it all seemed to be tied to intent. With the concubine there was no contract or covenant of enduring promise to live together as life-long partners, but there was sex. An interesting example from Jude 19 which mirrors the Sodom account mentions a man who travels with his concubine. A wife is never mentioned in the story, so it seems maybe he only had this concubine and was not married. I’m not sure (I would have to read more.) But this seems to suggest that the covenant is an important aspect of considering it a marriage, as the intent and promise for life-long union.

        Lastly, I would have to say, which I would think Angela would agree, that “the two become one flesh” represents more than sex. It also represents more than the two bearing a child. In a marital life-long monogamous commitment, the two become one team, one family, one unit… They share their life together as one “body,” share in thoughts, hopes, dreams, fears, successes, failures, struggles, triumphs…. Everything. The two become one not just in the physical sense, but in the mind as well, and as a helpmate, we share as a body. Had the “two becoming one flesh” only mean childbearing, than no infertile marriage would be relevant. Likewise, if it only pertained to sex, than “what God has joined together, let no man separate,” takes on a whole new meaning. (I’ll let you use your imagination, but my point is that the sex act is temporary in it’s “joining” and not constant.) So we must conclude that the enduring part of marriage is that the two become one in sharing their life as one unit (aka body), and it is designed only in the realm of the life on earth, while we are still alive as flesh (since there are no marriages in Heaven.) So the two become one flesh until their fleshly death. With this in mind, I don’t see how same-gender couples couldn’t be considered “one flesh.” And if it’s the idea that God only designed sex to naturally “fit” for male and female, then I’d suggest to look at this article regarding the body’s natural design: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/biological-evidence-that-proves-gay-and-lesbian-sex-is-not-unnatural/
        But most importantly is God at the center of the marital union, as He is our “head” to our one-flesh “body,” as we share in the same Spirit and rely on Him in all matters. What do you guys think?
        Thanks again!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • A says:
        July 12, 2015 at 9:58 am

        Also when we think about it there were married contracts back than. Not only that but there were divorce papers that a man must give his wife. However, when a husband did not give Divorce papers he would put away. Meaning without these papers she would legally be married

      • A says:
        July 12, 2015 at 10:05 am

        Also Joseph wasn’t going to divorce mary but put her away which was different. Shalach in hebrew is put her away. In order to divorce he would need a apostation

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm

        Wow. Okay, this is a tricky one. I’ve never heard this before, but when I looked up the words in my interlinear Bible, you’re right in that there seems to be a difference between “putting away” and “divorce.”
        “Putting away” (Greek- apoluo ἀπολύω Strong#630) appears to be to send someone away, releasing them and departing.
        “Divorce” (Greek- apostasion ἀποστάσιον Strong#647) is the contract that expresses repudiation that one will separate, and I’m assuming something that would refund any dowry payment.

        Jesus speaks on not separating from your partner (apoluo), and nothing about the divorce contract (apostasion), but He still says “what God has joined together, let no man separate” or “put asunder.” So it still seems God wants the couple that He has brought together to stay together, regardless of a contract written out or not, because one that writes a contract (apostasion-noun) will still apoluo as a verb of departing from the marriage. But in the case when Jesus defines apoluo (putting away) and remarrying as adultery, it’s true that he makes no mention of apostasion (contract.) But then again, both will depart (apoluo) wether a contract (apostasion) is given or not. Unless apoluo is to abandon without notice??? Then this could change the entire meaning and be a major alternate perspective. This in and of itself is a very controversial topic.

        Perhaps more study should also be done between apoluo ἀπολύω Strong#630 and apochóreó ἀποχωρέω Strong#672, which means “go away, depart, withdraw.” It’s very similar meaning, but might show difference between leaving and separating…. I think one would have to make a case for apoluo to mean abandonment (rather than just sending one away, releasing them, departing) for it to be strikingly different from divorce with or without a contract itself. But there’s also a word for abandon already, which is egkataleipó ἐγκαταλείπω Strong#1459. So who knows…

      • John R says:
        July 13, 2015 at 11:12 pm

        Hi Moanti,

        Hooo boy, yes you did indeed open a can of worms, but for me! I’ve actually thought about every apparent contradiction you mentioned before, with the exception of the Hebrew letter study. I also read your understanding of the matter in your reply to Angela and will respond accordingly… Get ready for a long one! I actually busted out my laptop for this x].

        First, let me broadly state that historically, sins of accident or of ignorance have never been punished as harshly by God. Like manslaughter. That is “technically” murder, but the Israelites actually set up protections for the killer, rather than punished them under traditional, intentional murder. In the same way, if sex is marriage, anyone who didn’t know that this was so and didn’t act accordingly, would only be guilty of a sin of ignorance. It’s not really anyone’s fault. This would include you and I and probably 90% of America. While it may technically constitute divorce and adultery, it would be akin to manslaughter. Moreover, if I’m correct in saying sex is marriage, and that the OT Israelites thought of it as such, then their treatment of prostitutes shows that they really weren’t too concerned with that kind of promiscuity, marriage and divorce over and over again. What they cared more about was adulterous promiscuity when one was CURRENTLY involved in a marriage. That doesn’t seem to apply to you and I.

        Most of all, we ultimately have to judge every person on a case-by-case basis. Our first purpose as Christians is to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, but sometimes loving Him doesn’t always mean a legalistic application of theological laws, as Jesus showed. Our second purpose is to love our neighbor as ourselves. If legalism causes harm or damages the reputation of the Christian God, then is it really the best way to show our love for God?

        Secondly, I will put you up to the same challenge that you put me up to, as far as defending your idea of marriage and certain definitions. You don’t have to tell why you believe certain ideas. I’m aware of most of the arguments for your marital ideas. I just want you to be able to show me where in the Bible you get them. If you can do that, then you’re far ahead of the game there, and considering your extensive research into sex in general, you already have a good base of knowledge to start from. Please understand that I’m not trying to attack you personally when I ask you to prove certain things.

        —————

        You’re pretty liberal in your “marriage is a covenant” ideas, saying that it matters little whether someone makes their marriage vows by themselves, or at a wedding, or in a courthouse. So I can see that you value the relationship more than the ritual, but you see a vow as the boundary line between a normal “cohabiting” couple and an officially married couple. This is perhaps an arbitrary definition, in my opinion. So please tell me, in God’s eyes, what’s the difference between a “cohabiting” couple who ends up living together in a marriage-like relationship for life and never says marital vows, and a “married” couple who first vows to stay together for life, and then also ends up living together for life in a marital relationship? In other words, if a couple does all the actions related to marriage until they die, does it matter whether they promised to do those actions or not? I know you believe the vow is what secures their relationship as a marriage, but does a vow quantitatively change the relationship or its likelihood to succeed? Personally, I think a couple that will be successful is successful because of their dedication and commitment, but I don’t think the marriage vow is really what puts that commitment factor into the relationship. No words can change a non-committed relationship into a committed one; only the people themselves can do that with their choices and their attitudes.

        Next, you affirmed in your message to Angela that if one flesh meant ONLY sex, then Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6 would have drastic consequences. Basically, those consequences would be that sex is the point of no return and that even if it doesn’t make you married, it certainly means you are not supposed to separate from then on. So consciously or subconsciously, most pastors and theologians know this and instantly withdraw as if burned by the idea, and they say to themselves, “Surely one flesh can’t mean JUST sex, can it?” They say this theory has issues because of pastoral issues, but with 3-4 out of 5 Christians having had premarital sex, I sometimes wonder if it’s really just fear of guilt driving their condemnation. And here is where I pose the question to you:

        If one flesh does indeed mean “A complete joining of physical and spiritual,” then we should see evidence of that definition in both Biblical usage of the term and perhaps historical evidence. So, where is your evidence that one flesh means “a complete joining of physical and spiritual” in the Bible or in historical usage? Especially when you consider that Paul in 1 Cor. 6:16 seems to be strongly implying that one flesh simply means sex (Even Martin Luthor and Calvin had trouble coming to a different conclusion)? Also, consider that one flesh literally means one meat, and the Hebrews had separate terms for the body and spirit. Why would the term apply to anything other than physical union? And then, consider that if it IS also a spiritual joining, then that suggests that those from different religious beliefs cannot truly be one flesh, yet Paul considers these kind of people married in 1 Cor. 7:12-16. In fact, Solomon wouldn’t really have had 1000 wives, because many of them practiced pagan religions, yet that culture too considered them married. Can you be married without being one flesh? If so, then what is the meaning of Gen 2:24, popularly attributed as the definition of marriage? And last, if one flesh is a complete joining, then what is the meaning of “cleaving”? Can one cleave to his wife in practice without “completely joining every aspect of their life, physically and spiritually”? It seems if yours is the definition of one flesh, then the definition of cleaving is a bit redundant.

        If you can find verses to support an interpretation that can answer all of those questions, questions that run through my mind, then I’d very much like to know. No resources I’ve found have adequately tackled the issue, as they mostly just assume that the audience agrees with their definition of one flesh. And every paper I’ve read that dismisses the “just sex” definition one flesh do so because they have a problem with its ramifications, not with its exegetical value.

        Now I won’t ask you to prove why marriage is indeed a covenant, because I intend to tackle that in my comment. But before I go through everything, ask yourself, have you ever actually heard anyone point out where the Bible says marriage is a covenant? Book, chapter, and verse? Also, when I ask about the necessity of the wedding or state marriage license and ask where the Bible points out that need, I get various vague answers and broad leaps of logic, but rarely can anyone point to a verse they think supports that argument. I think the fact that it’s so hard to find verses supporting these two things, such VERY important concepts to today’s theology, should be an indication that perhaps the Israelites and Jesus and the Apostles didn’t quite think of marriage and weddings in the way we think of it today. Gotquestions.org actually comes right out and says “The Bible is unclear about when a marriage begins in God’s eyes, as it never directly states what defines the start of a marriage.” To that I say, if you have a hard time finding an idea in the Bible, it’s either because it was so obvious to the writers that it didn’t need explaining, or it might be because you’re looking for the wrong things.

        ————–

        So I’ll tackle Exo. 22:16-17 first. Let’s start with the exception clause, “if the father utterly refuses.” Much like the exception clause for divorce later on with Jesus, I suspect this clause caused some internal debate among the early Jews. We should first take note that the later iteration of this law does NOT include the exception clause, and that one is actually talking about rape (Deut. 22:28-29)! Because we have two verses dealing with the issue and only one has the exception clause, we should probably assume that it was preferred that the man and woman stay together, rather than having the father “utterly refuse.” The fact that the father had to “utterly refuse,” or literally “refuse refuse,” in order to make the two separated seems to suggest that this was a last resort type of refusal. It’s not “well I don’t like this guy.” It was more like “This man is utterly rubbish and is no good and immoral. I refuse to allow my daughter to be with this man.” There had to be a REALLY good reason to separate the man and woman.

        To me, this suggests that in this culture, sex did indeed bind the two somehow, as it applies even to rape. Even if there is a separation between sex and marriage, sex still came with some form of strong commitment to them. We can’t avoid at least that conclusion because if they did NOT believe sex had commitment attached to it, then these laws would be very odd laws with no underlying reason to it. For every law, there is an underlying “why.” What reason would they have to make a LAW that the two should marry? Though some explain that it was for financial reasons or because of the high value of virginity, this usually does not take into account that in this culture, it would be common to sell daughters into slavery and concubinage, and that there are many laws that deal with marrying divorced women, so marrying non-virgins must’ve been common enough if laws were written to govern it. If virginity wasn’t really as highly prized as we presume, then why marry a woman to her rapist?

        I believe the most likely reason is that sex causes an obligation to “not separate,” as Jesus states later in the NT in Matt. 19:3-12. I don’t believe Jesus was saying anything new there, he was simply reiterating the underlying WHY to these laws. God has joined them together, so don’t separate.

        Now it does say that the father might refuse to “give her to him.” It shows that in this culture, while there seems to be an underlying belief that sex causes a commitment factor, the father had the ultimate say in what happened here. He still had a claim of “ownership” over the daughter. We see the phrase “marrying and giving in marriage” all the time in the OT, so it would appear that the daughter must be willingly given away for a couple to begin living together. I admit I haven’t considered this in my arguments. But really, this makes sense in a patriarchal society. After all, the only way the daughter would be taken from an unwilling father is through deception or physical force, both of which would likely be punishable actions under Jewish law. But the underlying belief is that the father still “owns” the daughter until he gives her away. How do we resolve the tension between the fact that the two are one flesh, and that the father has to willingly give her away?

        Apparently becoming one flesh didn’t place a strong enough bond on the two that it severed the authority of the father (in this culture), so in this particular situation, it would appear that the father’s authority was given priority. Considering that there is no exception clause in Deuteronomy, and knowing that the laws Deut was likely written several decades or even centuries later, I wonder if that exception had been removed, or if it had just become such a commonplace understanding that writing it in wasn’t necessary.

        Either way, because of the mere fact that the Israelites departed from God’s law when it came to divorce, we can’t take at face value that this verse seems to be saying that the father refusing was an acceptable practice in God’s eyes. If the father refused, did that constitute a divorce? Under my view, the answer is yes, because the two became one flesh and they weren’t supposed to separate. The only sure way to annul such a bond is death. However, in my opinion, this exception clause is one that God would have endorsed. Why? Because sometimes divorcing causes less overall harm than strictly following the law. The law was given to show us that we can’t follow it perfectly, right? We are to follow the law of love, and this exception provided a way out for bad unions, even if those unions were technically permanent. That being said, I think that “if you can accept this, you should accept it,” as Jesus said.

        I should make a small side note that it would seem the Jews thought that legal divorce severed both the marriage vow, the relationship, AND the one flesh status of the couple. Otherwise, they would have considered remarriage adultery. Jesus’ statements to his disciples in Matt. 19:9 simply confirmed that while we may annul a vow and a relationship, divorce cannot sever the one flesh bond, because that part was made by God, and so some part of the marriage, the one flesh part, remains even after breaking vows and breaking the relationship. To me, it would seem that the one flesh part of a marriage must be pretty important to God.

        Now I’ll deal with the first part of Exo 22:16-17. It says “and he shall make her his wife.” Yes, this seems to imply that there are separate processes between having sex and making her his wife. After all, if they were the same, it would read “and the two, being now husband and wife, shall not divorce all of their days.” But here’s the thing: the process for marriage and the process for making a wife aren’t necessarily the same things. Today, they are the same, but in ancient Israel, this wasn’t the case. If we look at Judges 19, we see a terrible story about a Levite and his concubine. It states that he took her as his concubine while in Bethlehem in the land of Judah, presumably through some slave market there. Then when we fast forward, we see that she runs back to Bethlehem in Judah to go to her parent’s house. Wait whaaaat? Now we have two interpretations: either the concubine was sold as a slave to slave traders by her parents, or her parents sold her to the Levite as a slave themselves. Just to give you some perspective on the culture of the time. Then we see something extremely interesting: the Levite, the owner of the concubine, is referred to as her husband. So apparently the writer of Judges, and therefore likely all of Israel, considered concubines to be basically slave wives. There’s more proof that this isn’t a fluke because the writer takes great pains to demonstrate that the concubines father is the Levite’s father-in-law. Moreover, while this isn’t certain, it would appear that this is the first time the Levite has met his father-in-law, despite the fact that he was married to their daughter. I say this is probable because in vs. 3, we see that his concubine had to “take him into her parents’ home.” Why would he need her help if he already knew where her parent’s house was previously? It seems to suggest that the Levite was asking in the streets whether anyone had seen his concubine, and someone brought her to him. He wouldn’t need to ask in the streets if he knew her parents or where they lived, would he? If I were him, and I knew where her parents were, her parent’s house would be the first place I’d go. Or if I even just knew their names, I could ask where they lived and go there. Apparently this is not what happened. And I doubt the concubine was just sitting at the town gates waiting for him, as 4 months had passed, plus she ran away from him in the first place. Because of all this, I would say that the parents sold their daughter to a slave trader, and the Levite has never met them before. And now for the best part: The father-in-law welcomes the Levite GLADLY. In today’s world, if you married someone under their parent’s noses without ever telling them, then made your wife a servant, her parents would be FURIOUS. But this concubinage thing was apparently normal back then.

        This tells us something else very important: marriage in Israel, at least with concubines, didn’t always require the elaborate betrothal and wedding process, or even the consent of the parents. Those processes always involved the families of the couples, and this marriage apparently did not involve them. I would assume that the sale of a concubine required witnesses, as this was a property transaction, but that was probably more to protect the monetary transaction than as any holy writ of marriage. Here is, in my opinion, ample evidence that the Israelites didn’t view marriage as limited to a consensual vow. After all, this woman had absolutely no say in who she was sold to, more than likely. What it suggests is that the elaborate betrothal, vows, and wedding processes were designed to protect the interests of both families during the important process of transferring “ownership” of the daughter to the husband, and also to set up legal protections for both parties in the event of a divorce. Sounds a lot like weddings and prenups today. But for a concubine, this wasn’t strictly as important because she was a slave and so did not have rights anyways (note I don’t condone slavery). Also, while concubines seem to have some matter of permanence in the family (Abraham and Hagar, among others), there are no laws overtly prohibiting a man from reselling his concubine, nor are there statements regarding the need to give her a writ of divorce. I think, again, the most logical explanation is that sex is marriage, and that the legal aspect of marriage, including the vow, was designed to protect WIVES, and not necessarily slave wives, or concubines. It could be said that any law protecting a wife could also apply to concubines, but who knows? In any case, the treatment of a concubine would really depend less on laws and more on how good of a person the husband was.

        Now this all ties into my argument for Exo. 22:16-17 because it points to an alternative explanation for the phrase “and he shall make her his wife.” While indeed there was more needed to make her his wife than just sex, in Israel this didn’t mean the two weren’t married. It would seem that this statement is just saying that he can’t treat her like a concubine, and that he must go through the full legal process in order to make her a wife, so that she would gain full legal protection under Hebrew law. This doesn’t actually state that they didn’t become married by sex alone. Today, this law would perhaps be worded “and he shall then become legally married as well to his wife.”

        ———————

        Now I’ll look at the statements in John 4:16-18. I actually struggle with this passage still, even before you brought it up! But first, let me point out the problems with viewing this passage if you view that one can only be married through a wedding/vow. Even for a supposedly “immoral” Samaritan woman, marrying 5 husbands is a lot! Because concubines were rapidly vanishing during the Roman times, it is unlikely that this woman was actually a concubine. As I demonstrated above, the requirements for marrying a concubine were much more lax. But a traditional Hebrew wedding means that she would have essentially gone through 5 years of betrothal process, then 5 weddings, to 5 different men, all of which either divorced her, she divorced them, or they died. Or she murdered them and got away with it, who knows? The thing is, it is unlikely that this woman was considered a very scandalous woman because we see her chatting up her townspeople in vs. 28-29, and people believed her testimony in vs. 39. I would think that, if there was anything wrong with her high number of marriages, her credibility would be called into question when she claimed she saw the Messiah. Moreover, she says “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.” From the context, we can assume that this is a figure of speech, because I doubt the woman literally did nothing but marry and divorce. So I think it is likely referring to everything either important she ever did, or every important sin. After all, the Hebrew prophets were known for their proclamations of doom and gloom, not for extolling the virtues of the people. She thought Jesus was one of these prophets.

        But the biggest problem with viewing this passage under the wedding/vow theory is this: Why in the world would the Samaritan woman have premarital sex and live with a man in the first place? She obviously was a pro at going through the marriage process, ‘cause she’s done it 5 times already! “Just” cohabiting would not have been accepted in society back then (and in my view, impossible), so it’s highly unlikely that she was living with a man she wasn’t married to. And moreover, Jesus uses possessive terms to describe the “one she has now.” Has. In this culture, a woman couldn’t “have” a man in a possessive sense unless they were married, could she? I can’t find one instance of a woman “owning” or “having” a man possessively in which they weren’t married.

        All this makes it tricky to interpret this passage and its true meaning even for the common theologist who says that the wedding/vow makes one married. After all, if Jesus is indeed calling out the woman’s sin, then it would appear that the only sin is the premarital sex at the end of Jesus’ statement (the one who you are with is not your husband). The 5 husbands could ONLY be legitimate, because they could only have been husbands if they made vows. So why does the Samaritan woman say “he has told me EVERYTHING I have ever done?” It seems to imply that Jesus was condemning the 5 other marriages as well.

        Under the view that sex is marriage, we have only one possible scenario, and so the situation gets much clearer. Though adultery is a wrongful union, it still makes the two one flesh. Therefore, a woman CAN have two husbands at the same time. It’s just not the right thing to do. So the first scenario: The woman has had sex with 5 different men (married or unmarried) over a period of time, and they all are her husbands even if she never had any relationship with them. It could be that the woman is a prostitute, or very promiscuous, or perhaps she actually went through the whole legal process of marriage and divorce and/or murder 5 times, or some combination of the three. It doesn’t really matter. Then the statement that “the one she is with is not her husband” can mean only one thing: She’s not with a man. She’s grown tired of men and is currently with a WOMAN. Dun dun dunnnnn! Perhaps Jesus did not simply say “the one you are with now is a woman” 1) for prophetical and dramatic effect, because he was showing how duplicitous she was being by saying she has no husband, and/or 2) because the phrase “your woman” would not really make sense in Aramaic when talking about a woman possessing another woman. It would have the effect of saying “the wife’s wife,” and I’m just not certain that kind of terminology would have been common back then. It’s like saying I’m eating hot ice cream. Now Jesus isn’t necessarily condemning the woman being with a woman here, but He certainly would be pointing out her duplicity. And in this culture, perhaps two adult women having sex would have been scandalous, especially to a Jew, so she might have had a good reason to hide it from Jesus. It’s uncertain though.

        Now it should be noted that in Greek, the word for man and husband is the same. The only way to tell is the context, and almost always, the translators choose to translate man as husband when there is a possessive quality to it, such as “man of her.” The woman says “Not I-am-having man.” The interesting thing is, Jesus reverses her word order, implying an emphasis on the MAN part. “Ideally, you have said ‘MAN not I-am-having.” Continuing on, it reads, “Five for men you-have-had, and now whom you-are-having is not of-you man (not man-of-you, or simply not your man).”

        Notice how Jesus very carefully avoids a gender when he says “whom you-are-having.” The traditional interpretation says that Jesus is emphasizing the singular “man” to then contrast it with the plural “men” she has had in the past. But it could very well be a contrast between the male GENDER of man and the female gender. I actually think it’s both, and that Jesus was simply being very clever. He is essentially saying, “Very ideally/cleverly you have said ‘MAN I have not’, for not only have you had MANY men, but you are now not with a man, but a WOMAN!”

        I will actually change my mind now on something. I previously said that Jesus seems to be condemning the woman for something. But conspicuously absent is his catchphrase: “Go forth, and sin no more.” Even if the woman did commit passive adultery against her 5 husbands (because it would be inevitable if they didn’t all die), Jesus never tells those who have remarried to repent. Paul never tells those who remarry to repent. Passive adultery through divorce and remarriage seems to be not nearly as bad as active adultery against a current spouse, especially if the person doesn’t know any better. How can someone “go forth and sin no more” from a remarriage? The best thing to do is just to stay together. And Jesus doesn’t tell her to repent of her relationship to the woman! If homosexuality is indeed sinful, it seems to not even be worthy of rebuke from Jesus Himself. And the woman actually says “here is a man (lit. human) who has told me everything I ever did,” and is not stated to be remorseful for any of it. I actually think now that Jesus was simply pointing out his prophetical skill here, rather than any strict condemnation, and that he was pointing out simply the big events of her life, rather than the sins of her life. And again, this woman seems to be a relatively accepted woman in society, as “many people believed in Jesus because of the woman’s testimony.” Ha, I didn’t even mean to find support homosexuality with this discussion.

        Also, now I think it is pretty certain that these 5 husbands and the woman were somewhat secretive in nature. Otherwise, the Samaritan woman might have asked “Who has told you these things?” No, she just accepts at face value that Jesus is a prophet, for how could anyone but a prophet know a person’s innermost secrets? So, then, how could having 5 husbands be secretive, unless sex is marriage? Having sex with five men and then a woman sounds a lot more like the typical confused bisexual/lesbian college girl than the typical woman who goes through 5 weddings and divorces.

        I think viewing “the one she has now” as being a woman can be valid no matter what marital theology you subscribe to. I actually think it holds more weight, because again, why would a woman who had married 5 times suddenly decide to give up on that whole marriage thing and have premarital sex in this culture? Under my view, Jesus is actually placing the same implication of ownership on a lesbian relationship as on a heterosexual relationship. The one who you HAVE, just like a man would have a woman. This could imply that one flesh could extend to homosexual sex as well… hm, I’ll have to do more research on that one. Essentially, one flesh would still just mean sex, but I’d have to think about “what God has put together” would mean, because for me, the most likely candidate is conception, or the possibility of conception, where the two literally become one new being. But then again, one flesh applies even if no conception happens… so it’s primarily about the sex, rather than conception. Okay, so I now have at least one verse that possibly supports homosexual one flesh-ness, and thus marriage. Yay! The problem is, adultery gets very tricky when you consider homosexual one-flesh to be possible… If a man has 2 wives, and then has sex with another man, and that man is now his husband too, is that adultery against his wives? Or does homosexual marriage not count as adultery, because there’s no possibility for conception? But adultery happens just from sex, and is primarily because of becoming one flesh. Hmm… I’ll get back to you on this one haha! But this interpretation certainly supports homosexual relationships, if not the official homosexual one flesh status, and that’s something I didn’t even consider until writing you.

        Anyway, this passage poses no great threat to the sex is marriage idea, but is simply tricky to interpret no matter which angle you come from.

        —————
        1 Cor 6:15-16

        I’ve heard the argument that this verse is actually contrasting “one body” and “one flesh,” and that Paul is not suggesting sex is marriage, but that having sex with a prostitute is “just” one body, while sex is supposed to be enjoyed within the full “one flesh” relationship of marriage. The problem with that view is that Paul uses the word “gar” between the two sentences, which is always explanatory or causal in nature, meaning that the latter sentence explains the cause of the former sentence. In other words, one becomes one body BECAUSE it is written, the two shall become one flesh. Paul is unequivocally equating one body to one flesh, which seems to reinforce at least the definition of one flesh as equal to sex.

        I personally think that Paul used the one body term because it was a common excuse among the Corinthian church. Think about the common excuse an adulterer might make: “It’s JUST sex, it doesn’t mean anything. Not like it’s really cheating, right?” Now let’s imagine we’re a Corinthian: “It’s JUST one body, it doesn’t mean anything. Not like it’s one flesh, right?” So Paul was telling them to quit making excuses and stop marrying the body of Christ to a prostitute who will adulterate against you within the day!

        ———

        I understand where you’re coming from with your testimony about thinking that sex is marriage. It’s interesting that it was on your mind too. I wonder how common the thought actually is, considering that the church adamantly opposes this idea. Perhaps it is actually written onto our psyche… Sex is marriage is definitely an extremely conservative view, though many don’t actually think it through enough to consider that fact. Many actually initially think I’m saying that anyone can just have sex whenever they want and break up whenever they want and just have hookups and stuff, which is the exact opposite of what the theology is all about haha. But yeah, requiring that people who just have sex stay together is always a pretty tough thing to actually do in practice. This is why I’d say that it depends on a case by case basis what the best thing to do is. Again, passive adultery, through divorce and remarriage, seems to be only lightly condemned by Jesus and the early church, though we should definitely try to avoid such things if we can. But what’s more important that following such legalistic definitions is following the law of love. If it is more loving to allow someone to separate, then even IF it contradicts a law in Scripture, the law of love should take precedence, for love never does harm to a neighbor. And Hosea 6:6 says God desires mercy, not sacrifice. We should understand the WHY behind every law, so we can become wise in our decisions, but I think our ultimate moral guide should be primarily shaped by love, and secondarily our understanding of ancient law. This is what allowed Jesus to contradict so easily the Pharisees and counter even the Torah itself.

        That being said, I think you’d have to admit, that if the church had preached that sex is marriage when you were a young child, you probably would have taken more precautions against having sex. Perhaps it should be taught, and fairly strictly enforced, but within reasonable boundaries. After all, marrying people to rapists today would cause such an outrage that many would actually quit Christianity, and perhaps even more would refuse to join the faith! Also, practically speaking, what rapist will agree to marry his victim? Do we even catch most of these people?

        ———

        Now you say that there is confusion because of the definition of porneia. I read the article, and I agree with its conclusion: porneia is a very broad term used to describe any sexual immorality. It had the same effect as saying “sex sin” today. So adultery is always porneia, but porneia isn’t always adultery, much like how a rose is always a flower, but a flower isn’t always a rose. I think your confusion comes from the fact that fornication’s definition today is “sex between two unmarried people.” This is actually a misleading definition, as fornication back in the day meant any sexual sin too!

        1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,Fornication

        The difference between a fornicator and an adulterer is… there is no difference. Fornication is a translation of porneia, and so while adultery is always fornication (in the original meaning), fornication isn’t always adultery. Under the sex is marriage idea, one cannot have sex “before” marriage, so premarital sex doesn’t actually exist in the way we think of it. But there is sex before the wedding/state license process, and that’s still sometimes not the best idea, and there is sex without commitment (promiscuity), which spreads diseases, etc. This doesn’t take away the need for sexual restraint; it actually adds to that need.

        Now as far as one not truly being able to divorce someone they aren’t married to, meaning divorce isn’t actually possible during the betrothal period, my answer to that is yes and no. Yes, divorce is possible because they’re married, but no, divorce is impossible because they’re not REALLY married. Confused? Good haha. I think the problem is, again, time has distorted our views on what a marriage was to the Israelites.

        First, vows are a big deal, as God expects you to follow through with the vows you make. If two people vowed to marry, in God’s eyes and the Israelite’s eyes, separating would be as good as divorce, even if they haven’t had sex yet. The vow COULD start a marriage, and this is what they did at the betrothal. But the wedding was where the one flesh union began. I think the best way to view the matter is as two separate things. We think a marriage can’t happen unless the two become one flesh. They thought you could get married before becoming one flesh, as long as you promised to become one flesh in the future. Now if the man and woman did not end up actually having sex, they actually broke the terms of the betrothal vow and their marriage was annulled. But to annul a vow, one had to give a writ of divorce.

        While we compress this process today, it could be said that our weddings are actually more similar to the Jewish betrothals, as that is when the marriage vows happen. That promise to have sex (among other things) is when we consider ourselves married. Now if the two decide they made a mistake before having sex, they already signed papers and made vows and so must get a legal divorce, but they haven’t become one flesh and so are still virgins, meaning they can’t commit adultery. So is it really DIVORCE divorce? And if they remarry, are they really REmarrying, since they can’t commit adultery? See where I’m coming from, sorta? We really just need to come up with different terminologies. I think it’d be best if we called the union by vow a pre-marriage, while becoming one flesh solidifies that and would be called marriage.

        On the other hand, however, in Jewish law, once two unbetrothed people became one flesh (that were eligible for marriage), they had to remain together (Exo 22:16-18, Deut 22:28-29), so again, sex came with a steep commitment attached to it, at least legally. Not only that, but the man had to also go through all the legal processes attached to wifedom. So while we see that marriage is not always synonymous with one flesh (if the two break up after the betrothal and before the wedding night), one flesh is always synonymous with marriage (in Jewish law). I would say then that God considers one flesh to be the bigger commitment, and the vows and legal stuff is all just backup assurance of what we should do anyway: stay together in a loving and sexual relationship.

        ————-

        Now looking at the incest laws, I actually just recently saw the connection, but you point out an additional thing to consider. These laws are obviously not connected by genetics, because it’s worse to have sex with your father’s wife (not your mother) than it is to have sex with your sibling. The connection, as I discovered, is primarily in proximity of one flesh-ness! It shows that the ancient Israelites literally believed that the two became one person in some way through sex. Having sex with your father’s wife uncovered your father’s nakedness as well because your father’s wife is one flesh with your father, so her nakedness is his nakedness because they’re basically the same person. In other words, having sex with your father’s wife is like having sex with your father (sorta like you said). This isn’t bad necessarily because of the homosexual nature of the union: after all, if that were the case, they could’ve summarized this whole chapter by saying “don’t have sex with your father!” No, it’s the sex with the wife that’s the problem, but it’s a problem because of the wife’s one flesh status to your father. Does that make sense at all? It’s a violation of the sanctity of one flesh unions. I’ll go through and explain a few of them.

        In Lev. 20, we have a reiteration of these incest laws, but in order from worst to least worst, going from the death penalty to barrenness. What was the criteria for the ranking? Closeness of one flesh relationship, not genetics. The closer you are to being one flesh already, the more incestuous the relationship was, and so the more harsh the punishment. Remember that as a child, you are a product of a one flesh union, so in some ways you ARE the one flesh of your father and mother.

        Lev. 20:11: Father’s wife. Direct sexual contact with father’s one flesh wife. Death
        Vs. 12: Daugher-in-law: Direct sexual contact with son’s one flesh wife: Death
        Vs. 14: Mother and daughter (possibly banning the threesome only, or the marriage): daughter is product of one flesh union, and so is related one step down from one flesh. Having sex with both the mother and the product of the mother’s one flesh union is almost like uncovering the nakedness of the daughter’s father. Note, that the mother could be your own wife, so this would also prohibit daughter-father sex, which otherwise is missing from the list of incests.
        Vs. 17: sex with sister or half-sister. They are products of the same father’s one flesh unions, and so they are only one step away from uncovering their father’s nakedness. This isn’t directly uncovering the father’s nakedness, so this is only punished with cutting off from the people.
        Vs. 19: Aunt’s and Uncles: They and your father are products of the one flesh union of your grandparents, so having sex with your aunt’s and uncle’s is only one level below uncovering your grandparent’s nakedness. Punished with something less than death.
        Vs. 21: brother’s wife: Direct sexual contact with brother’s one flesh wife. Punished by barrenness. Interestingly, this is in direct opposition to Levirite marriage, where a brother takes a dead brother’s widowed wife to produce heirs. Perhaps this verse is only talking about a living brother’s divorced wives.

        So overall, the general message here is that the product of a one flesh union should not have sex with the members of that one flesh union. I suppose it is kind of a mathematical conundrum of one flesh-ness haha. Yet it was allowable during the early parts of the Earth, so I wonder if it is actually inherently sinful.

        Regardless, these laws are interesting because some of these would simply constitute adultery. For example, having sex with your brother’s current wife would be adultery against your brother, as well as incest. So why don’t they state that “this is adultery,” like they do with the neighbor’s wife law in vs. 10? I believe it is assumed that the wife is divorced, and so adultery was out of the question (in their minds). But this shows that the Israelites believed that some form of connection was still between the divorced couple. And then, how do we explain why they had laws regarding Levirite marriage between a brother and his dead brother’s widowed wife? Perhaps it was believed that adultery could only be committed against a current spouse, even though divorce didn’t completely sever the one flesh bond. I don’t know for sure, and I’ll have to do more research on this. I think the likely case though is that when it talks about having sex between your father’s wife or brother’s wife, they are primarily talking about divorced wives, because if it was a current wife this would just be adultery and wouldn’t really need the extra condemnation. And this law wouldn’t apply, perhaps, if the father or brother died, because that definitely severs a one flesh connection. This is why Levirite marriage was allowable, even though vs. 21 clearly forbids having sex with a brother’s wife.

        What is a bit confusing for me is, if these laws tell us that the ancient Israelites DID think that one flesh unions lasted after a divorce, then why did they not believe that adultery was possible beyond divorce? After all, both incest and adultery are primarily sexual violations of one flesh unions, and they seem to believe that incest applied to a father’s wife even if the wife was divorced, right? Perhaps it is just as Jesus said in Matt 19:8-9 They allowed this hypocrisy because of the hardness of their hearts, not for any good reason. And so what Jesus says to them was actually even more brutal to the Pharisees, because perhaps they also thought one flesh lasted beyond the divorce! If that is the case, then Jesus is simply stating the obvious to them and telling them that their Hillel and Shammai arguments about what kind of divorce was allowed was stupid, because they missed the point! Remarriage causes adultery. However, this conclusion is questionable, because the disciples apparently did not know that remarriage causes adultery (vs. 10), so the rabbis may not have taught it in such a way to the general populace. Hm, more thoughts are needed on this. I mean, obviously, if the general Jewish community was taught that one flesh extended beyond divorce, surely someone would eventually come up and say, but then why isn’t adultery possible beyond divorce? It could be that this is simply a theological problem the Jews had without realizing it, much like the problems I’ve shown with the church’s current definition of marriage :).

        ———-

        Now with regards to your Hebrew letter study, I’ll take your word on your assessment of the word for marriage. Interesting stuff! Sex with a continued covenant. So we can at least say this is the ideal in the Hebrew culture! I’m going to try one flesh now and see what we get. Actually, let’s just do flesh and see what the juxtaposition is when we say that flesh goes from two to one.

        BSHR, bashar/basar.

        Bet: Tent floorplan: Family, house, in
        Shin: Two front teeth: consuming fire, destroy, sharp, press, eat, two
        Resh: Head of man: man, first, top, beginning

        Okay, interesting word cluster. So flesh (literally meat), on its own, means something like a structure that is ultimately perishable and finite in nature (has a beginning, whereas God has no beginning). Hm. Well honestly I’m not getting a larger message from this haha. Sounds like the definition of meat alright.

        What I do notice is that flesh is entirely perishable in nature, and that it is an attribute of man, not God so much. God is not flesh, He is Spirit. There’s no mention of a spiritual nature or a covenantal nature of flesh, because flesh is ultimately finite, while the spirit is forever. So when two people made of perishable meat then turn into one big perishable meat, it would seem that this is a union that has little to do with God. Yet Jesus states that God, in fact, DOES have a lot to do with the two becoming one flesh. He actually puts them together.

        So putting that together with marriage, we see that marriage is sex that continues in the covenant, and also Gen 2:24 says marriage has something to do with two people becoming one perishable finite structure, perhaps having to do with family as well. Under my view, marriage then is “becoming one perishable finite structure (through sex) while continuing in the covenant.”

        Okay. Cool. I have to admit, though, that while Hebrew letter study makes for interesting evidence, I personally value the ideas behind scripture more than the words themselves, because words can change meaning over time even while using the same letters. On the other hand though, I’ve heard that Hebrew is the only living language that does not develop, and has been the same since its inception. So these letter studies would hold a lot of value if this is true.

        Now you say “sex without the continued covenant” is porneia, but I would adjust that to “sex outside of the continued covenant” is porneia. It’s sorta the same, but connotation and semantics. The latter seems more all inclusive.

        ———————

        Now as far as covenants go, I will briefly go through why I think marriage is not a covenant, as far as how we think of the term. Marriage does often INVOLVE covenants, but I think there is evidence that marriage itself can exist without covenants.

        The first and most obvious clue that might point us to this fact is the conspicuous absence of any command for vows of marriage or the making of marriage covenants ANYWHERE in the Bible. This is really surprising, especially for a verbal plenary inspirationalist, because if the Bible is the entire revealing of God’s word to man, then why doesn’t He give more explicit instructions for the most important institution humanity has?

        The second clue is that concubines were considered married (Judges 19). Also, note that in the story of Jacob and Rachel and Leah, they both “give” their servants to Jacob to have sex with. This is seen as perfectly acceptable, and later scribes never condemn this behavior, yet no marriage vows are said to have been made. If marriage is a vow, we would think that some later scribe would have taken the time to make a comment that “Jacob must’ve made marriage vows with these servants,” but no such note is there.

        The third clue is in Jesus’ statements on adultery through remarriage in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 19 is a good one). Jesus mentions that one only commits adultery if one remarries after a divorce. So if marriage can only be entered into by a vow, then Jesus is saying that if one has sex without taking marriage vows, then it’s not adultery. Seems like a very un-Jesus-like thing to say. Does this only apply to divorcees, or all adultery? If so, then I can have sex with as many women as I want and it’s not adultery unless I make vows of marriage to them. A better explanation is just that sex is marriage. This covers all sexual acts as adultery, instead of just sex with vows.

        The fourth clue is more complex as it requires that we understand how typical covenants worked back in ancient Israel. I’ve already given a source on blood covenants, but I’ll summarize all covenants. A covenant is always some kind of promise to do certain actions. A covenant of peace is a promise to not fight. A covenant of friendship is a promise to remain loyal and friendly. A covenant of law is a promise between the lawgiver and the populace to uphold the laws and do the actions the laws say to do. These promises were either bilateral or unilateral, meaning that it could be equal or unequal in action (God’s promise to Noah to not flood the earth was unilateral. Noah didn’t have to do anything back to God so that the flood wouldn’t happen again). And similarly, they can either be conditional or unconditional. Most important perhaps, a covenant was taken so seriously because it was always taken under pain of death. Yep. They would invoke God as a witness, cut an animal in two (or some general sacrifice), and perform a “walk of death,” saying something like “Just as this animal has died, so to shall I if I do not keep the covenant.” We know this last part from ample historical evidence and from clues in the Bible.

        God upholds these vows as binding, such as the covenant of peace and servitude made between Joshua and the Gibeonites. When Saul broke that covenant by killing many of the Gibeonites, God indeed sent a 3 year plague onto the Israelites, and that plague only ended when the Gibeonites forgave the Israelites (in exchange for Saul’s 7 sons being killed). Here’s an important part of covenants: If they are broken, God upholds that “walk of death” unless restitution is made and/or unless the offended party forgives the other.

        Now can we say that marriage vows are anything like that today? We vow to honor and uphold til death do we part, yet when we divorce, we break that vow. Does God come down and send plagues on the divorcees? Nope. Because we don’t include the death clause. If we REALLY wanted to say marriage covenants are as binding as the covenants made in the OT, we’d need to include such a curse/death clause in our marriage vows, along with a sacrifice (a meal would suffice). Imagine the somber tone of wedding receptions then! It’d be “I vow bla bla bla OR ELSE death do we part.”

        So marriage covenants today are not at all like the covenants made in ancient times. And it wasn’t much different in ancient days either! We see no divorcee or even adulterers being visited by plagues and other divine curses anywhere in the Bible, so we can safely assume that if marriage covenants were made in ancient Israel, they weren’t nearly as serious as the covenants made for peace, lawgiving, friendship (David and Jonathan), etc, because there was no death clause in the covenant.

        So while I don’t disagree necessarily that covenants are involved in the ideal marriage process Biblically, I don’t think they are nearly as big a deal as we make them out to be. Moreover, because of the other three reasons, I would say that sex/one flesh is actually a more binding union than marriage covenants were in the Bible.

        I think the ideal process in ancient Israel was this: The families arrange a marriage between a daughter and son. They court for about 6 weeks (traditionally). If they agree to marry, they are then betrothed. This means they take care of the legal process of marriage (signing papers, nuptials, arranging a wedding date and housing location), and they also make a covenant of marriage. This covenant essentially says “We promise to have sex with each other on the wedding night (among other things).” At this point they are husband and wife by covenant (Mal 2:14), but not by flesh. A year or less later, after taking care of housing and other arrangements, the two have sex after the wedding feast (note, not ceremony. The ceremonial stuff happened at betrothal). They are now also husband and wife by flesh too. This seals the deal and actually fulfills, to a large degree, the initial marriage covenant! While the covenant probably included many of the things we include, such as providing care and love for each other, promising to have sex would have been a large part of the covenant. Otherwise, this wouldn’t be a marriage haha. Now they “continue in this covenant” until death ideally.

        But the fact that concubines didn’t have to do any of this stuff seems to suggest that being wife by flesh is as binding as becoming a wife by covenant.

        —————

        Hooookay! I sincerely apologize for the massive wall of text (17 pages), and pray you read this on a day where you got a lot of sleep! I’m sure you’ll find the John 4 interpretation interesting. I certainly don’t expect you to reply to everything I’ve said in full. I just wanted to give you something to think about. I think Angela’s presentation is also interesting and I’ll have to think about that too. I suspect, though, that putting away and divorce were just different terms for the same basic idea. They have the same root word “apoly,” so I can’t imagine that they would have too different of a meaning. A similar Greek word was gamos, which meant marriage. However, it comes from the root word gamo-, which literally just means union. Monogamy is one union, polygamy is many unions. And gamous, gamais, etc, all had different connotations for the same idea: marriage unions. Sometimes it meant the wedding, sometimes it meant the state of being married, sometimes it meant the institution of marriage. I suspect it is the same case with divorce and putting away.

        Because of how lengthy things are getting, I think that if you want to communicate further on the issues of marriage and homosexuality, we should probably take this off the comment section and send emails or something, because it would be easier to respond to long messages like this.

        Lastly, I just wanted to reiterate that no matter how strict “sex is marriage” may sound, it is a principle, an ideal, a perfection perhaps if it comes from God, and we cannot reach this perfection as a species. All have fallen short of His glory. We must certainly strive for such ideals, but when it comes to actual practice of such ideals in such a broken world, sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. I don’t want to kill anyone. But if someone is threatening my family, I will kill if I have to. We call that justified, but when it comes down to it, my killing is murder, and no circumstance can justify the fact that there is death in the world, even though it was loving to protect my family. The brokenness of the world requires that we navigate such grey scenarios and use God’s truths as a light to the best path. When it comes to sex is marriage, I think we should definitely understand this principle and seek to uphold it if at all possible. But there will always be circumstances where it would be better to let the two separate, rather than keep them together.

        We can’t live in a bubble of legalistic principles when people’s lives are on the line, and Christianity’s reputation is on the line. That goes for sex is marriage and homosexuality. Love is the greatest tool for judgement we have, and I don’t mean that like liberals typically mean that. They think it is loving to avoid offending people. I say if you don’t offend someone, you don’t follow your own beliefs, because your actions and beliefs WILL offend someone out there. I mean that we should always try to act in a way that is first most beneficial for a person’s soul, their relationship with God. This includes discipline sometimes. And then we should act in a way that is most beneficial for the rest of their being, mental, physical, financial, emotional, etc. And then we should act in a way that is most beneficial for society as a whole. Yes, I say society is last, because if we seek to benefit the individual holistically, then society will naturally benefit, because society is just made up of a lot of individuals. More happy people means more happy societies. More saved people means more servants to Christ benefitting the rest of the world. Etc.

        Anywho, congrats on getting to the end of this comment! Thanks for continuing to respond.

        John R

        P.S. Sorry my reply took so long. Obviously, it was longer than normal, but I am also on vacation and so packing and driving around and various activities have limited my time. I got sick playing golf though :(. Oh well.
        P.P.S. If you do want to communicate privately and collaborate on research, we can set up some kind of private IRC chat to exchange contact info so it’s not posted on the comment section.
        P.P.P.S. I’m glad you value my opinions on your research! I understand that you might have an internal struggle with my ideas because I claim that one flesh can only be between heterosexual couples, which means marriage as the Bible defines it can’t be between homosexual couples. Even if that’s true, I think the quality of your relationship, the vows you took, and the nature of the union is no different in substance than a heterosexual marriage, and I don’t really think God cares so much about the exact terminology. Why should you?

        Actions are what matter to God, not the names we ascribe to them. Your union is all about love, and that doesn’t diminish just because the name is different. Would not a rose, if by some other name, still be a rose? Who cares that the terminology for applying marriage to homosexuals might not have existed thousands of years ago? Neither did the term homosexuality, and that doesn’t bother you, does it? In fact, Greco-Roman philosophers were simply dead wrong in saying that animals didn’t practice homosexual acts, so can we really trust the ancients’ judgements on the issue? So please don’t let the terminology be a deterrent to your consideration for my ideas, and try to remain unbiased. I realize that doing so requires effort, and simply trying to understand my ideas takes a lot of effort and individual research and study and meditation, so thank you so much for actually giving my research real thought, even when it may not directly apply to you.

      • John R says:
        August 16, 2015 at 1:04 pm

        Hi Moanti,

        I’ve done a little more research on Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, and WOW the translators take a LOT of liberty with the translation.

        Maybe you already know this, but the word mishkab is ALWAYS used as a noun, meaning “place of lying.” This word is used to describe couches, beds, and even graves (lying in death). When the word want to use the word sexually, it’s almost always explicit, such as in Ezekiel 23:17.

        “They came to her on mishkab of endearments/love”.

        It can also be used as an implicit sexual term, such as in Gen 49:4, which refers to when Reuben slept with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, in Gen 35:22.

        You are destructive like water and will not excel, for you got on your father’s mishkab, then you defiled it – he got on my couch!
        Genesis 49:4 NET

        Here, when Joseph says that Reuben “got on his father’s mishkab,” it is used as a euphemism for saying essentially that Reuben had sex with his father’s bed-mates, which in this case was Bilhah.

        So when we look at the translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it is absolutely unfair and incorrect to translate mishkab as the verb “as one lies with.” There is not a single other verse in the OT that uses the noun mishkab in that way, and it shows a clear interpretational agenda. (Again, you probably know this already, but bear with me)

        So what I think would be a better literal translation for 18:22 would be is this:

        With (denoting physical proximity or association with) male you shall not lie place-of-lying of woman.

        The common interpretations are that this is prohibiting a man from having sex with another man as one would lie with a woman, or that it is prohibiting only homosexual sex in an idol worshipping context. But I wonder if perhaps other interpretations might make more sense.

        For example, if we think of three people involved instead of two (you, a male, and a woman), then this is simply prohibiting devil’s threesomes because they would constitute adultery in the Jewish thinking. However, this is problematic if we look at the punishment in Lev 20:13, where only two people are punished. It would seem that this is describing sex between only two people. I’ve already mentioned in an earlier comment that I think the punishment in 20:13 could easily have originally referred to all three people in the devil’s threesome, as the word “two of them” could be a later scribal addition and that the rest of the verse would still read just fine without it. But there’s another theory I just thought of that doesn’t require dismissing this verse.

        If we look at Gen 49:4, we see that getting into a specific person’s mishkab has the force of saying that you’re having sex with that person’s bed-mates. After all, a “place of lying” can be a person when having sex, as you literally lie on top of someone usually! When we interpret Lev. 18:22 using this usage of mishkab, we have an interesting interpretation (“You” will refer to a male)

        You lie in a woman’s mishkab, or bed. But this is used as a euphemism, not necessarily literally. Just like Reuben “getting on” his father’s bed refers to Reuben having sex with his father’s concubine/wife, here it would refer to you lying with the woman’s husband, since it is her “place of lying” that you are lying in.

        This would mean that the male that you are lying with is actually the woman’s husband. This, therefore, would only prohibit a male having sex with someone who is heterosexual and married already, perhaps because sex was viewed as a domination thing back then.

        It is pretty clear from Lev. 20:13 that this act was usually a consensual thing, since it says that both men were killed, but from references to rape in other cases (Deut 22:23-27) we can assume that if a husband was raped, he would not be killed as he would be guilty of “no sin worthy of death.”

        So what the verse would better read as today is this:

        “You shall not lie with a woman’s husband, this is abomination.”

        Or more literally, using the euphemism:

        “You shall not lie with a male (who is the) mishkab (bed-mate) of woman”

        Definitely not an outright ban on make homosexuality! One can easily see why this would be considered a sinful act. Essentially, this would prohibit homosexual adultery for men. For women, it is likely that there is no overt prohibition against a wife of one man having sex with the wife of another man because women weren’t considered to even be capable of homosexual sex. Like the Greco-Romans, perhaps the Hebrews believed that sex was defined more by penetration than sexual pleasure. A woman has no penis and so cannot have sex with another woman.

        This isn’t to say that the Hebrews were unaware of lesbian sex. Just that they didn’t consider it sinful or even worth mention in the OT writings. It would be the equivalent of masturbation perhaps, which also received no mention. While it is important, it is largely consequence free, as far as diseases and baby-making goes, so there was no need to promote or prohibit it.

        So this raises a question on David and Jonathan’s relationship. If it is true that a man was not supposed to have sex with a husband and that David and Jonathan had sex, then David committed a mortal sin long before he met Bathsheba because David was married when he met Jonathan! Of course, this problem can be solved in a couple of ways.

        The first way is to simply say that David and Jonathan didn’t have sex. Simple enough.

        The second way is to consider the fact that David, and in fact the Hebrews during that time period in general, were somewhat ignorant of certain prohibitions in the Mosaic law, such as incest (2 Samuel 13, Tamar mentions how David would allow Amnon to marry her even though they were brother and sister). Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are smack dab in the middle of all of the sexual prohibitions that David seemed unaware of. So what we must consider, and what some scholars say is likely, is that SOME of the 600-ish laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were added after David and Solomon’s time as an extrapolation and amplification of the 10 commandments.

        In this case, we could say that perhaps the laws outside of the 10 commandments hold less weight because they are human interpretations of the 10 commandments, and that the punishments prescribed to adulterers, murderers, and perhaps those who sleep with heterosexual husbands, etc, are of human origin, and not God’s.

        This is the interpretation I prefer because it harmonizes much better with Jesus’ statements about how we shouldn’t take an eye for an eye, but turn the other cheek. The 10 commandments, if you’ll notice, have no punishment prescribed to them directly. Perhaps they were never supposed to. After all, disobeying the 10 commandments leads to its own punishment, as society is harmed directly by your actions.

        Anywho, let me know what you think!

        Best,

        John R

        P.S. I’m eager to see what your new article looks like. I saw that it would have a connection to the word for woman and the word for burnt sacrifice (same consonants, different vowels), but I dunno what connection you made out of that. Hope your research goes well!
        P.P.S. Perhaps this interpretation could shed some light on Paul’s made-up term, arsenokoitai, as man-beds could imply the same euphemism I am using. It would refer to someone who lies with a man’s bed-mates, or more simply, an adulterer. Or perhaps it would refer to a man who lies in the beds of wives, meaning a man who lies with heterosexual husbands, which would tie directly into this verse.

  78. A says:
    June 30, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Also notice that incest had not ended in lev 6-18 did not ended in abomination which is toevah. So it shows that it’s not a idolatry.

    Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      June 30, 2015 at 7:59 pm

      http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_8441.htm

      ◄ 8441. תּוֹעֵבָה (toebah or toebah) ►

      Data does not lie… Please notice the various uses this word has ever met in Holy Scriptures, restricting its use to “ritual idolatry” and denying its use for “immorality” in these “homosexual verses” is dishonest.

      Evidence, please notice the conclusion of the Leviticus chapter, A.

      ◄ Leviticus 18:29 ►◄ Leviticus 18:30 ►

      Unlawful Sexual Relations

      NASB

      “…29For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30’Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.'”

      Abominations, abominable here in original Hebrew :

      ◄ hat·tō·w·‘ê·ḇōṯ ►

      Englishman’s Concordance

      http://biblehub.com/hebrew/hattoevot_8441.htm

      Strong’s concordances references it on the right side of the page ◄ 8441. toebah ►

      This word share the same meaning “toebah” has really, a different writing. the same Hebrew reference, is recorded, 8441.

      Do you have enough evidence now…? Are you open to correction, A….?

      All of these “abominable customs”, are referenced as “toebah” according to these, ABSOLUTELY reliable sources, recording so many concordances in the occurences of a specific word in the Bible, it is unarguable…

      All of these “abominable customs” consequently encompasses ALL OF THESE sexual sins mentioned in Leviticus, from adultery to bestiality, passing by these various “forms” of incest manifestations and including…. Homosexuality.

      Are you, or anyone here really, STILL going to voice again the “idolatry”, “shrine,” “temple”, argument, now..?

      I have teach you a lesson at word play, I am not boasting but you brought this upon yourself, you have showered me with Hebrew verses, ever since you reply to my comments, now you take that back…. It is only FAIR.. A.

      Sooo…. In the end, the Leviticus prohibiton is not at all restricted to “idolatrous homosexual sex”, or the same logically applies to all the other sexual sins, by semantic concordance… It is your beloved “original Hebrew” providing unarguable proof.

      Certain people committed to attack and demean God’s word should stop with “original language” mistranslation claims, they give a bad name to committed professional translators INTEGRITY of the Holy Scripture throughout History, and on topic, ignore said History gives bulletproof records of early teachings of the Church ALREADY condemning of homosexual sex…

      http://www.learntolove.co.za/index.php/the-bible-and-same-sex-attraction/what-were-the-early-teachings-on-homosexuality

      Thank you for your attention, and I pray you stand corrected in the GODLY TRUTH now, if you profess to be a Christian this is where you belong…

      The enemies of God will be destroyed, so PLEASE be extremely careful, where do you stand with GOD..,

      ◄ Romans 14:12 ►

      New Living Translation
      “Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God.”

      My GOD, I do not want to be you, or anybody defending “homosexual sex” (or “gay romance” nurturing homo-erotic sensuality) on the Judgement day…

      Regards.

      My final note for you Moanti personally, I am sorry to have litterally hijacked your blog this month of June 2015, I felt the need to help you and your, our Christian brothers and sisters, readers… I ended what I started last year, and I am now really, finally and profundly satisfied of my “work” here.

      I am always open to corrections, but I humbly know “my theology” wins your / the “pro-gay theology”, my comments are a blessing on your page, a door to my God’s TRUTH on the matter of “homosexuality”…

      Another, last note to my readers..

      Please, people concerned by the topic at hand on this blog, never forget, homosexual sex is a sin yes, but it is a sin among others, not a “special sin”, it is forgivable and vanquishable like other sins, by the support of the Holy Spirit, and caring, loving Christian people and communities, churches, PLEASE do not lose HOPE!!!

      Just……. Do not bite the hand that feeds you, and never, NEVER, EVER seek legimitation for the homosexual beavior within Chrisitanity, if you trespass this “rule”, please do not ever complain Chrsitian people,,or churches worthy of this name rebuke, expells YOU for inappropriate claims and to speak the nakee truth, for bad faith, ill will.

      Compassion has limits, and that limit is called, “TRUTH”..

      God loves us sinners, Salvation is FREE, in Jesus Christ yes but it takes the acceptance of our guiltness of our, sinful nature..

      God forgives, but can we forgive ourselves, our sins…? “Christians” believe the path to God, and to communion in Holiness with God, is in Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah and Savior, and LORD, ALIVE….

      Please know and hold on to this TRUTH… Jesus rose again from death, and say, “I am with you always” .. His believers and followers are born again with him, within him and say, along with Christ, with God, “I am with you always”…. The path, the way and the life…. “Christians” are committed to be a safe habor for others, a light in this world of darkness, living a live pleasing to YHVH..

      My words of condemnation are terrible and firm, but they are JUST, I confess with God the same truth stated in my God’s Bible writinsg and teachings, My judgments, like His are not sugar coated in false benevolence, but are warings for each own’s SAKE, well beign with GOD… I am genuinely compassionate of others, my fellow sinners…

      I have only been the messenger here, a humble servant of my God…

      My “perfectly clear” motivation is the Holy Spirit of my God leading me, driving me to be charitable with you all Christians readers and believers, followers, I have been taking on my time, on my health, affirming or clobbering your Biblical conceptions or msiconceptions, sharing the truth, attempting to open you people eyes, to the Biblical truth on this, “gay topic”.

      The truth of “the Biblical God”, our Holy God’s design and will for human sexuality, and “romantic” relations stand as clear, as short and as simple as…

      “One man, one woman, for life”

      “Homosexuality” has no place in God’s plan for His People, I am sorry for every person self-identifying “homosexuals” …. But should they profess to be Chrisitians, this truth stands and applies, prevails over their sensibility, “oriezntation” and temptation to sin in this way, among other sinful ways….

      Fulfilling friendships with same-sex people is your way to Holiness.

      As a benchmark…

      “Homosexual sex” (as well as “gay romance” please do not be deceived because it is not explicitely stated in Holy Scriptures, one humanly leads to the other…) is a detestable act, an abomination by my God’s very own words, that truth stands for me and for you, should you be professing Christians.

      If your “spirit”, is offended by my words , or hate my words just above, if your conscience feels the need, the urge to shut my mouth speaking them , to challenge God’s declaring this sinful practice by those very specific Biblical terms among others ones, to challenge and oppose these words I merely repeated and confessed along with the Holy Spirit of God, it is a sign, you have real, a REAL, and YOUR FIRST WORLD PROBLEM as a Christian, or as a non-Christian with the One True GOD, you have been deceived by the enemy and need to examine your faith URGENTLY, where do you stand with GOD…

      Because God does not lie and declared, sooner or later, utlimately enemies of God will be destroyed, deserving their destruction according to their own wrong choices for their lives, their will to not repent of their sins, to not believe and oppose our Creator goodness and Holy ways….

      To non-Chrisitian people reading me.. You are all welcome to, coming to Christ, freely for salvation if you believe… , I pray for us all, inclusively, intensively, and never discriminate others unjustly, unfairly… Amen.

      Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      June 30, 2015 at 8:12 pm

      A last relevant link and really, the final nail in this “gay topic” coffin stand with GOD.

      http://biblehub.com/bdb/8441.htm

      Solid, concrete evidence speaks a thousand words…

      Please find, where Leviticus occurences of “toebah” are listed, by yourself… A.

      Reply
      • A says:
        June 30, 2015 at 9:55 pm

        One problem all of them state idolatry on them. Also Egyptian had used toevah to describe the jews. not only that but the Greek word for toevah clearly shows that it was taboo not a sin. The Hebrew word for that is Zimah

        Regarding the Leviticus reference to toevah being false translated and having nothing to do with homosexuality: A further evidence of this is toevah is used throughout the OT to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase “toevah ha-goyim” “the uncleanness of the Gentiles” (e.g., 2 (4) Kings 16:3).

        The significance of toevah become clear when your realize the other Hebrew word “zimah” could have been used – if that was what the authors intended. Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. For example, in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry, “toevah” is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general a different word “zimah,” appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29). Often but yes, not always, “toevah” specifically means “idol” (E.g., Isa. 44:19; Ezek 7:20, 16:36; Jer. 16:18; cf. Deut. 7:25-26).

        Clearly, then, Leviticus does not say that a man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Rather, it is a ritual violation, an “uncleanness”; it is something “dirty” ritualistically. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live, as its opening remark make clear – “After the doings of the land of Egypt, …..etc and the prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods) (often mistranslated fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).

        This conclusion finds further support in the Septuagint where the toevah is translated with the Greek word “bdelygma”. Fully consistent with the Hebrew, the Greek bdelygma means a ritual impurity. Once again, other Greek words were available, like “anomia”, meaning a violation of law or a wrong or a sin. That word could have been used to translate toevah. In fact, in some cases anomia was used to translate toevah- when the offense in question was not just a ritual impurity but also a real wrong of an injustice, like offering child sacrifice or having sex with another man’s wife, in violation of his property rights. The Greek translators could have used anomia; they used bdelygma.

      • A says:
        June 30, 2015 at 10:00 pm

        Also the Jews were described as toevah by the Egyptians. It was taboo not a sin for the Egyptians to eat with the Jews.

        1. Genesis 43:32 has a curious observation about the meal that Joseph ordered to be prepared for his brothers during their second visit. Joseph, still masquerading as an Egyptian — he recognizes his brothers, but they don’t yet know who he is — has a meal prepared for his guests. But Joseph eats alone, not with his brothers, because for Egyptians to dine with Hebrews is “a to’evah for the Egyptians.”

        2. Another Egyptian to’evah, according to Genesis 46:34, are shepherds. Joseph coaches his family to tell Pharoah that they are shepherds so that they can settle in Goshen, “because every shepherd is an Egyptian to’evah.” It should be noted that of course Pharoah had shepherds of his own, and the text (Genesis 47:6) even confirms this, but the truth of the statement isn’t the point. What’s important is how Joseph connects “Egyptian to’evah” to his plan.

        3. After the 4th plague, as part of the negotiations between Moses and Pharaoh, Pharaoh agrees to let the Hebrews sacrifice to their God within the land. But Moses counters that it’s a bad idea, because (Exodus 8:22, also numbered 8:26) what the Hebrews sacrifice is a to’evah of the Egyptians, and if the Egyptians see the Hebrews offering such a sacrifice, the Hebrews will be stoned to death. At least, this is what the text appears to say. Another possibility is that it’s not what the Hebrews sacrifice that’s a to’evah of the Egyptians but, rather, it’s the fact that the Hebrews are sacrificing that’s an Egyptian to’evah. Either way, there’s a close connection between the Egyptian to’evah and the Egyptians stoning to death the people who introduce it.

        So Joseph’s dinner arrangements, shepherds, and the sacrifices of the Hebrews have two things in common. The first is obvious. All three are called a to’evah, apparently something undesirable in some way. The second, less obvious thing they have in common is, I think, a clue to what exactly to’evah means: they are all either a to’evah for the Egyptians or of the Egyptians.

        According to these texts, a to’evah is culturally determined. Something can be a to’evah in one culture but not in another. So the Hebrew sacrifices are a to’evah for the Egyptians, but, obviously, hugely encouraged in Hebrew society; shepherding is similar. And it was only in Egyptian culture that Egyptians couldn’t dine with Hebrew

      • A says:
        June 30, 2015 at 10:07 pm

        Also the Jews were described as toevah by the Egyptians. It was taboo not a sin for the Egyptians to eat with the Jews.Not only that but the link I had posted shows that it was a specific kinda of homosexuality because it was not copied in Deut. We see that Zimah was used for normal prostitution so the same could have been done in lev 18:22

    • Christian57 says:
      July 1, 2015 at 5:19 am

      Hmm, my other comments are still pending Moanti’s approval, to be published…

      Strong’s Concordance in Bible Hub websire of this word speaks History.

      You speak in biased favor of “homosexuality”… I trust, History. Data doesn’t lie, A…. 🙂

      Reply
  79. Christian57 says:
    June 30, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Hi, A.

    “Well when you think about it’s been made clear God wanted us to marry humans and sleep with humans.”

    “it’s been made clear” for you, A….

    You are offending me, I am born with “bestiality orientation”, and can not help it..

    You seem unreasonably judgemental and intolerant, this makes me feel really rejected, and “weird” now…

    It is a “hate crime” to speak negatively of my sexuality, in behavior or in orientation, you are not aware…?

    You can be held liable for defamatory comments, I warn you to please be very careful what you say to me against my God given sexuality…..

    This is my Basic Human Rights you are violating, and attempting to alienate from me, do you know…?

    By constitutional laws, I am granted the RIGHT to “love” and to “marry” who and what I want to marry, anyway you are not GOD to tell me what I can, and can not do…

    Would Jesus discriminate me, I am an “animal lover” and “love” them, really, it is physical!!

    I read this here :

    https://supportedbythebible.wordpress.com/tag/bestiality/

    (WARNING : I pray you understand, I am using sarcasm, so does this website author!!!)

    A lesson teaching all arguments employed in the “homosexual debate” can and will be used 1:1 in future debates surrounding bestiality, and incest legalization, this is an absolute certainty, a fact.

    “Toevah” did you even read my message to you? The second part of it, what do you think… ?

    Homosexuality in the Bible? – An alternative perspective

    Thank you, I am impatient to know your thoughts.

    Reply
  80. Gary says:
    July 1, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Oh Xavier, or Christian57, or Anthony, or whatever you want to be called today, the bestiality argument was the same argument that was used when the Supreme Court made Interracial marriage legal.

    Get some new material.

    Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      July 1, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      I do not confuse God honoring Christianity and civil affairs.

      Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      July 1, 2015 at 6:49 pm

      I would appreciate you could adress me by my tag “Christian57” only from now on, and request you to not call both my brother name, and my real name publicly anymore for privacy reason..

      Thank you for your understanding, Gary.

      Reply
  81. Gary says:
    July 4, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    Christian57,

    As I’ve said before, the bible can be used and has been used for centuries as a weapon by Christians.

    Just as Ebenezer Warren, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, used bible verses in 1861 as a justification for slavery: “Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible ….”

    Just as Bob Jones, Sr., former president of Bob Jones University, used bible verses in 1960 to justify racism and Segregation: If you are against racial segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty.”

    Just as Dennis Anderson, head pastor of the Appleby Baptist Church in Nacogdoches, Texas, uses bible verses even today to justify his racism and condemnation of interracial marriage: “In Deuteronomy 20, Israel is commanded to destroy the sons of Canaan. These are black folks whether you like it or not…. Satan wants to eliminate color by interracial marriages. Notice what God said about these seven black nations. “And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. Neither shall thou make marriages with them…”

    I feel very strongly that the Bible is a reflection of men’s souls, but more to the point, a reflection of the psychology of the person who uses Bible verses as a weapon.

    As you confided to us last year, you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety from sexual abuse you suffered by a man who sexually attacked you in a park years ago.

    I believe the toxic mix of shame and guilt that you suffered after that attack is the driving force behind your homophobia. This is not surprising. Many clinical studies have been done to show that males suffering the after-effects of sexual abuse by another male develop severe forms of homophobia and unfortunately, the Bible is a perfect place to turn to express, validate, and justify that homophobia.

    I think you need to look deep within yourself and use the Bible not for hatred but for good, as a tool to root out that hatred from your soul.

    Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      July 5, 2015 at 4:03 am

      Hello, Gary

      Thank you for your polite and well meaning message.

      A year have passed since you could read me here, learning some of my personal struggles with this traumatic anxiety at the time, was extremely oppressive for me…

      I was feeling like a trapped animal, threatened to be litterally raped by a fellow man, 10 years later this paralyzing horror irrationally day in day out resurfacing as a PST….

      A full year passed on, and I am “happy” to inform you, I learned to cope with my “shit” well enough by now, Most importantly, my past does not define me, I do not allow it to…. This is why I was / am offended you (or anyone) could hold me captive (please notice the word…) to a wrong opinion of me…

      My defensive, protective reaction to my trauma always was me finding shelter in pious prayer, in my God’s arms, in my Christian faith, Chist risen morality standing against the homosexual practice as a whole, indiscriminately of who and why it is conducted. impartially, objecitvely…

      I never allow myself to mistreat others, being a victim of such thing….

      I challenge my personal conviction on this subject more than due for years, resulting I know there is no supportive God breathed Scripture in favor of same-sex sexual behavior to my humble knoweldge, there is just not, without an individual, human will personally twisting their meaning for selfish gain or misplaced “compassion” and this explains that, how I am so bold with my statements on Moanti’s blog…

      I will invite you to learn again, two painfully honest truths about me, on this area of my life and person..

      First, because this event happened to me in my France summer 2002, if I remember correctly the year, our current media conveyed “concept” of “homosexual persons” was totally foreign to me, I had no computer, no internet and the few TV channels I would watch, never talked about this… This result in the fact, I NEVER associated this “man” assaulting me with a “homosexual”, I only knew this other man action, move, gesture was totally uncalled for, violating my gender identity, and I ran for my life,…

      Second, still to this day for me, this “concept” of certain people being “homosexual persons” is totally foreign to me. I do frequent one openly “gay” friend as a regular “facebook” contact for already several years, and appreciate him as he is, cool and polite with me as I strive to be with others indiscriminately, normal… The only singular difference I can notice rest on his “facebook wall”, he follows only men celebs, likes to share pictures of exagerately masculine men, sometimes almost naked and hairy ones, he likes Cristiano Ronaldo, Yves Saint Laurent and Eurovision… Cliché but true! ^^

      The honest truth I tell you, my conscience, intelligence, understanding is rooted in my Christian, Catholic education, tough I progressively disassociated from the “Catholic” denomination because of the prevalence of clergy mediation between the believer and God, and several “human” dogmas such as the Sacraments, the intercession of Saints, Mary staying virgin to death, I can not believe in both… I am more of an “Orthodox” if anything from the three main branches of Christianity, but actually consider and understand myself a simple “Bible believing Christian”, the “church” being the “body” of Christ’s believers.

      Despite all my efforts to understand this “concept” of “homosexual persons”, I do not believe, I do not “buy”, do not take for granted, do not aknowledge and indeed, I do not accept the “fact” certain people are seemingly naturally subjected to a “homosexual orientation”, because of my Christian education and faith, belief I do not and in truth, I can not unless lying to myself, grasp this foreign concept. of a seemingly unchangeable orientation to sin gravely against one’s own body, common human nature, that could be valid for certain people… It is against my intellectual honesty and most importantly, against my moral integrity understanding of my caring and loving God’s character, to celarly (despite what they say) and strictly forbid the conduct of such acts, while “creating” a group of “homsoexuals” and stuck these people with this “orientation”….

      I pray you understand, Gary these two facts,, I never asociated my agressor with a “gay man”, and I do not understand the concept of a “homosexual orientation”, a group of “gay people” I never consider,… My statement in this comment should serve as my outspoken testimony, I am not a hateful, ravenous “homophobe” on the hunt to demean “gays”, for cheap revenge for my offense from my agressor, in no way I am such low…..

      My motivation was, is really to reason Moanti out of her self-deception, but I am now letting go of this… To be honest, maybe there is some egotistical motivation in my “work” here, my “heterosexual” pride, to “conquer” this “lesbian” woman, winning her back to our common God…? I know God loves us as we are, not to change us, it is we who do the changes, because God loves us first…

      If Moanti does not aknowledge the homosexual behavior to be sinful, as a fellow professing Christian believer, she is in error and serve the devil in the end, a false god of her own making who condones, not condemns homosexuality, and promotes the evil, political “gay agenda” within the church…. I feel it really was my God’s call, my “Christian duty” to challenge her so much on this, for her own sake…. Amen.

      I am conflcited by my compassion for Moanti and “gay people” well being with God, sincerely, but at the same time, I know and can not pretend on this, I know by my God Holy Spirit of Truth, this is a man-made and a manipulaltive contemporary “concept” to lock people in a so-called “orientation”, creating dependency to social sub-identities, and pride in ideas of inherent legitimacy to take what’s still not meant for us by nature, and by God’s Word….

      Now… I only want to withdraw from Moanti’s public space, blog, my purpose here started with me trying to help her and readers forwarding the example of Rolo, an actual “gay Chrisitian” worthy of this name, to my Chrisitian eyes and heart….

      And I rest on this statement, she does what she want of it, this is her freedom of decision, to agree or to to disagree with Scripture plain teaching, “one man, one woman, for life” on the question of Godly sexuality and Marriage, and to live with the consequences of it…

      My part is done here, I miserably but still, announced the Gospel of our mighty LORD rise, “I am with you always”, capable of saving us from any sinful, detrimental, harmful addiction, please confess, hold on the helping hand and believe….

      Take care….

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 7, 2015 at 5:44 am

        Dear Christian57,
        Every time I sit down to write you, I get more comments from you and others that I want to address, and then I keep trying to add more and more in one comment to be thorough, but then I sit days and days writing and re-writing. Arg! So I am going to just note a few things and try to accept if what I say will be incomplete! :/

        From your more recent comments especially, I can see how you believe that homosexuality doesn’t really exist and it’s all part of some sinister “agenda” that people have socially fallen into… At least it seems that you believe it’s not something that anyone could be born with and couldn’t get rid of it they really wanted to…. I have a really serious question to ask you. If scientific proof came out that it was something one is born with, would you change your stance on this issue and be more open to the possibility that the alternate perspective is true??? That GOD loves us and made us as we are, gives an equal offer of Salvation to all and blesses us with a partner that He sanctified and ordained to bear the fruit of His goodness? Not everything is encoded in the genetic code that defines us, especially who you will love, but there are multiple scientific studies that show that the hormonal levels in the womb in prenatal development have a significant impact on sexual orientation i.e., If you will be attracted to the opposites sex, same sex or both. So it might not be in the genetic code (or it could still be in epigenomes), but hormonal levels in the womb are something not chosen and something that one is born with… I think we can both agree that no human being is responsible for the hormones that were present when they were in the womb. So if this is the cause, than it is fixed from the beginning of one’s life. But I don’t need science to tell me what I inherently feel and always have, just as you don’t need science to tell you that you yourself are attracted to females as a “heterosexual.” It just is what it is. You didn’t actively choose heterosexuality just like I didn’t actively choose homosexuality. I know I myself as a person am not any “scientific proof” to you, but I speak honestly before God that I have had these attractions towards females beginning at age 5. I was not molested or anything, and I also had no knowledge of homosexuality at this time. I didn’t even know what it was until 4th grade, but had never even seen a movie that portrayed a lesbian kiss until I was 18! I also had not even knowingly met a person who identified as a lesbian until I was almost 19. This was long after I had already experienced multiple attractions and also had fallen deeply in love with a (straight) female, all the while trying to fight against the feelings. So why is this and where did it come from?

        I see how you keep comparing homosexuality to an addiction. But there is a common link in every addiction on earth without exception that homosexuality lacks. To have any addiction at all, one must partake in the object first to become addicted. A drug addict must use drugs to become addicted. A porn addict must first watch porn to become addicted. A smoker must first smoke to become addicted. An alcoholic must first drink to become addicted to alcohol. So one would have to conclude that to become addicted to homosexuality, one would first have to try homosexual sex to become addicted. Yet there are millions upon millions of homosexuals who have existed throughout time that have never “tried” gay sex, yet they still experience a longing for ONLY the same gender. So how can we conclude that homosexuality is an addiction?

        Now one might try to use the argument that alcoholism runs in families and a genetic link to alcoholism has been shown. But there is a sure fire way to halt any risk of alcoholism in a person who might become an alcoholic. One can simply just avoid drinking alcohol in the first place and avoid all risk of ever developing alcoholism. This person would never crave alcohol because they would have never tasted it to know its affects. They would not have yearnings for wanting to drink, even though they have a genetic proclivity towards alcoholism in their family. So if homosexuality is the same, in that it is an addiction, than one would have to “try” gay sex to ever have even a yearning or craving for gay sex. Likewise one would have to first be engaged in a gay romantic partnership to become addicted to wanting a romantic partnership (based on the model of addiction.) But this simply is not the case with homosexuality. If we were to apply the same reasoning of homosexuality to any legitimate addiction, than this would be like making the claim “I’m addicted to cocaine, but I’ve never tried it” or even “I am addicted to cocaine and have daily cravings for it, but I’ve never used it.” These statements makes no sense to apply to an actual addiction. It would be illogical to say “I am addicted to homosexuality but have never tried homosexuality.” Likewise heterosexuality cannot be compared to an addiction. One doesn’t have to try straight sex to long to partner with the opposite gender. It is an internal drive that is not chosen, but rather a God-given drive. So the similarities between heterosexuality and homosexuality and their unchosen longings for love are the same and cannot be equated with an addiction. But then others might say the cause of homosexuality is due to other factors which I won’t go over in this comment. Please read this in full and consider what is said: https://moanti.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/if-god-is-against-my-homosexuality-than-why-wont-he-heal-me-to-be-heterosexual/

        But despite this, I must say to you and to all other commenters, that homosexuality goes much deeper than a drive or instinct towards sex. It makes up such a small portion of “the whole” of the attraction, which is more so a drive and instinct towards joining together with another person as a intimate life companion. Most of us in the world have this drive to find that person to join in an emotional bond of affection that exceeds the feelings presented in a friendship. Feelings of romantic adoration towards the one you love is not chosen. I think that even the most close-minded heterosexual can agree that they never actively chose to love who they love. It came naturally to them to feel the romantic love towards the one they fell in love with, and to stop these feelings of love towards the one they love would be like one person trying to stop a tidal wave by holding up their hands. The difficulty involved in this is astronomical and scientifically proven time and time again to be impossible. All data that said otherwise has been proved to be invalid, inadequate and/or deceptive, and admitted to be false even by the ones who previously claimed it was true. They admitted that they lied and that not one person has actually stopped having same-gender attractions or have transformed from having gay to straight attractions. So shouldn’t this say something? Why on earth would God create a sin that was so naturally ingrained into their identity and not give any way of escape? I do not and cannot accept that celibacy is a full escape because those who do this still continue in their attractions, thus they still commit “the sin” in their heart because God has not shown to remove it. Secondly, one must recognize that the drive for a loving commitment may just be the strongest drive we have as humans, nearly equal to the drive to eat, drink and sleep. God made His creation and claimed it as “good,” yet the very first thing He said was “not good” is that “it is not good for a man to be alone.” Paul said unmarried and widowed people should stay single, but then said “But if they do not have self-control, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with desire. ” How is a gay marrying the opposite sex going to help solve this problem? Second, we all have “free will,” but for those that lack this self-control to not act or burn with desire i.e. attraction (which is considered worse), the only option is heterosexual marriage, and provides no help for the gay, but rather a deeply harmful incompatibility issue bordering on psychologically subjecting oneself to a lifetime of silent rape, yet STILL having continued desire for the love of a suitable partner which they have been forbidden to have.

        Do you know how much easier my life would be if I could have had my prayers answered to end this or just have been born straight? Imagine if you were not only asked, but told to stop having any attraction towards females or it could send you to hell. Imagine if instead you were encouraged to have attractions to males and even marry one, which would come with the occasional (or possibly frequent) obligation of sex and intimate affection. Your mind and body would not ever be able to accept this even if you wanted to. You were naturally created to be attracted to females as a heterosexual. That is why this event in the park made you innately feel that it was wrong, in addition to his unwanted aggressive advance being categorized as an attempted rape situation. Had you not run away and instead accepted his sexual advance even though you did not want it, than you would feel that much more like the interaction was wrong for you. For someone who has always and only felt attractions to the same gender, a sexual or even romantic gesture from the opposite sex has this same feeling of wrongness (for that individual person.) This is NOT to say that homosexuals believe heterosexuality is wrong, as I have NEVER heard of any gay person say that all heterosexual unions and attractions are bad and wrong. But rather, for that person, they feel the same feelings as you did in the park whenever they are put into a heterosexual sexual situation and overtaken when they have zero attractions towards that persons gender. It may be less traumatic or disgusting for some because of the cultural expectation towards heterosexuality, seeing that heterosexuals encompasses the vast majority, but as for the body and mind in all of its reactions, there is a repulsion when put in this heterosexual situation when the partnership exceeds just a close friendship.

        Now I must get something cleared up. You keep posting links and saying that they “disprove my blog,” or more accurately put, my “affirming theology.” I have written long lines of text to you critiquing these links recently, but in order to save you from possible infuriation, I have deleted these portions before sending in most cases. Regarding the last few links you provided, they have their merit, and I especially liked the one where the author spends time admitting that many Christians need to first repent of their “sin” (HIS words, not mine) of attacking, abusing and excluding gay people from the church before even thinking of sharing their view of these verses with a gay person. This condemning approach only drives them away, as it would drive anyone away if they were consistently verbally attacked by a group who claim they want them to be part of their group but exclude them at the same time. The contradiction in this is astronomical and not only drives away gays, but straights who see the injustice.

        But when you say the authors of these links “disprove” what I have specifically written within my blog, I ask you to kindly take a second look. The approach in one of the links you recently sent, the author spends considerable time arguing that arsenokoites isn’t reserved to child molesters. I agree! My argument (as well as many other Biblical scholars argument) is that it literally means male beds, and in context, most likely refers to a male who prostitutes himself. It is the word “malakos” which has been questioned as meaning child molesters, not arsenokoites. So the author of the second to last link does NOT “disprove” this and doesn’t even mention the word malakos. So his argument isn’t even considering the main point, as he choses something that can be argued, yet at the same time admits that Biblical scholars are split on the issue… Secondly, the author in another link takes Romans 1 and argues it’s individual Greek words and says that none of the words connect to prostitution, rape, etc. But the original Greek words in Roman 1 are not the center of the affirming theology argument, but the context. The context of the entire chapter is what points it towards idol worshipers. So the links that you provide to me do argue some of the weaker points in the affirming position (there are a variety of arguments), but they do not argue specifically what I have written here, in most circumstances. And when they do argue what I’ve specifically shared, I have already provided counterarguments to their arguments above that show that one still can see it in the affirming theological view. An example of an argument is that “arsenokoites has to mean homosexuals because it’s words taken directly from leviticus 18:22 / 20:13!” First, this is when we look only in the Greek old Testiment, and in doing so we see that there are other verses in the Bible that also have the words arsen and koites (and even more with the original Hebrew passages with the word equivalents zakar and mishkab) in the same sentence or next to each other that have nothing to do with possible gay sex. So why do they conclude that the meaning MUST only apply to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and not another verse that have these words arsen and koites (or zakar and mishkab)? How can we know that reading a sentence with similar words must be its defined meaning when there are other sentences with these words? Or can’t we just take the words on their own to be literal? Even though these words also appear in Leviticus, the Levitical verses are directly surrounded by sex acts all associated with idolatry that the Canaanites performed to the idol Molech. This is very clear in context. Also again, Deuteronomy repeats all of these death penalty sexual prohibitions in Deuteronomy, minus ONE thing-the wording in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. And instead what is inserted in its place is a condemnation of shrine prostitutes. So there is multiple evidence that these are one in the same. So going back to the connection of arsenokoites Leviticus word connection, this could STILL show that arsenokoites is referring to the actions connected to male prostitutes in Leviticus.

        This has taken me days to write, off and on, and here is where things get emotional for me. I try to stay analytical when it comes to this topic, but there is an issue I must address, and I can’t help but to express something that has become very problematic and damaging for both of us. I have asked you nicely to stop comparing my Bible studies to the unforgivable sin. All I have done is share what is found when we look at the original language and context of homosexual acts based on what we can see within Scripture. Do you really think that me studying the Bible in this way is going to send me to hell? I have told you how it grieves me for you to accuse me of the worst of all things, but you continue. And recently you now claim I follow a god that is not the true God and that I am doing the work of satan? I suggest you withhold from such drastic judgments of anyone, as I would assert that to make the judgment of such a thing is dangerous enough, especially towards a fellow believer in Christ who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit. If you truly believe I have committed the unforgivable sin, than why do you continue to try to minister to me? I’ve always seen your motives as pure, even when your words have been harsh and hurtful. But now I am wondering if you have tired from helping me and believe that since I have not excitedly accepted your theological beliefs that you now conclude that your possible “failure” in changing me must mean that I’m just unsavable and not meant to be saved. Or is it that you think that because I’ve expressed that this bothers me, than you are purposefully repeating it to get a reaction out of me, thinking it will make me change my mind and embrace the popular traditional theology again? You call yourself more of a “FATHER in Christ” to me. You, Christian57, are not God. There is only One Father in Christ. Your judgments are not the final authority. Only God the Father. I am grieved by what you say, and we are to build each other up as brothers and sisters in Christ, not cause a hinderance or stumbling block. So I ask you now a third time to please stop this accusation unless you delight in me (and any others who study this) casting any doubts on my own eligibility for Salvation. If I had committed the unforgivable sin, it wouldn’t matter that I wasn’t dead yet. I would already be damned. There would be no help for me. So if you believe this about me, than why do you even try if I am banned from salvation? Do you see what you are saying and the damage that this mindset could cause a person, let alone a Christian who loves God? Even worse, have you forgotten that a large portion of my life was spent entrapped in the belief that I was going to hell for being a lesbian? Do you not know the life threatening seriousness of this internal struggle for someone who loves God? But I cannot deny the peace that flowed over me and the experiences I have had feeling His presence and the many prayers He has answered and the abundant blessings of His comfort, and the supernatural encounters of His light and love warming my soul and this came to me at a younger age and not again until after He showed me His love for me in His Word. God is good and He is a just judge and I thank God you aren’t God. I understand your convictions on this issue are strong. But I think you need to separate what would be considered a personal conviction based on a difference of theological perspective and what constitutes as the unforgivable sin. I didn’t come up with these things out of thin air. I am only reading what I see written in the original language and context. I know you see it differently and I don’t blame you. Thankfully for you, you’re not the one that has to deal with this within your own life since you don’t have same-sex attractions. These verses don’t even concern you, so your view on them is not going to affect your walk with God, aside from how you treat people who do have to face these as relevant to their identity. I welcome your friendship, but I suggest you focus your spiritual energies on converting non-Christians. I already have the blood of Christ to cover me, unless your accusation of me is true… You don’t even know the damage you’ve done. God help restore us.

        This compassion you’re fighting against that you speak of feeling conflicted by…Did you ever stop to think where this compassion is coming from? Is compassion not from the Spirit? Than would not God give the same compassion to me? I feel this is all a set test for the BOTH of us. He is coming soon. May we all endure in our faith until the end…

      • Christian57 says:
        July 7, 2015 at 11:07 am

        Hello, Moanti.

        I request you to please not draw any conclusion from assumptions you could form about me, my psychology, sensibility, my person, this have nothing to do on the topic of the acceptability of same-sex sexual conduct to Jesus-Christ.

        Thank you for your understanding.

        What I believe, to make the uncalled task of “knowing me” a cake is based on Biblical Scriptures teachings, evidently and truthfully. I do not allow myself to poison the well with too much personal interpretations on otherwise perfectly clear topics.

        My compassion for you and “gay people” I am fighting against is the opposite of the Holy Spirit wisdom, it come from my sinful human nature, the same wrong entitlement which caused the apostle Peter will to keep Jesus from his sacrifice, despite knowing the Law of God required shed blood for the worst sins atonement…

        The Cross was mandatory and Jesus said,to Peter’s seemingly best intention :

        ◄ Matthew 4:10 ►

        New International Version

        “Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'”

        In the same way, my personal, human will calls me to grant your human wish, to prevent you suffer the missing, the loss of living a “romantic” and “sexual” relationship but the “problem” is, “sex” and “romance” are not a “human right” nor are they promised by God, and you must stop pretending not to know, the Abrahamic God clearly states gender difference is mandatory in His design for human sexuality within Marriage, men are for women, and women are for men. Period.

        I agree with you on this being a set test for you and me, challenging our common Christian faith, personal convictions, and I chose to serve God over you, and people experiencing same-sex sexual attraction (in Biblical Truth, same-sex sexual TEMPTATION), I refuse to give you the affirmation of same-sex sexual behavior to be acceptable to Jesus-Christ you are craving for, no matter the sophisticated arguments, begging and crying you can ever express. I am not going to pretend a person acting on same-sex sexual temptation is “okay” with God, as my God teaches to me as to any genuine disciple of Jesus-Christ.

        My God comes first and foremost, this is the first and greatest of the two commands Jesus gave to those who truely loves him. To “love” others as much as I “love” myself is the second, similar to the first, but still second in priority, in hierarchy.

        I have no shame and no guilt to confess, I have barely given your comment my attention, I am not willing to fill my brain with unwanted and biased information, you are relying on “pathos”, capitalizing on this wrong “compassion” I expressed to feel, in an attempt to win my sympathy, inlfuencing my objectivity, impartiality in my judgment. At any rate, should you want to argue and plead for your sin(s), this stand with God, not with me.,.

        You have all my empathy, I suffer along with you in your trial, struggle with God condemning homosexual sex, and zero hint of the possibility of God blessing “Gay Marriage” according to Scriptures, but my sympathy for your cause in support of “gay sex” and “gay marriage”, you have not; and never will have, I hate sin and serve God, not you.

        The only question I discuss with you, is same-sex sexual behavior acceptable to Jesus-Christ.

        Please notice, how I am caring to be careful in my comments on your blog, first I am always clarifying when stating homosexual behavior is a sin, my messages are aimed, adressed to Christian believers, restricting the scope of my words to people willingly abiding to Scripture authority. Second, I normally always forward the Gospel, this sin is forgivable like any other sin, I keep the sin of practicing homosexuality well sorted in context, to quote an article from one of my most reliable sources for Biblical answers :

        “lumped with other sins of sexual immorality, such as adultery and lust, it is important to note that homosexuality is no worse (or better) than any other sin.”

        Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/same-sex-attraction.html#ixzz3fDoWVX4k

        Now, let me share with you the Biblical Truth you continue to refuse and to challenge, despite your claim of serving the same GOD :

        God’s original, intentional design for human sexuality and Marriage stand together as :

        “One man, one woman, for life”

        Later, God’s Leviticus prohibitions of incest refined His design, declaring spouses must originate from different families, in order to form their own.

        During his ministry on Earth, Jesus Christ, the final authority for Christians, confirmed this design of God to be His everlasting will, desire for human sexual relations and Marriage.

        These are undisputable facts, Moanti and the Biblicial Truth on the question of Godly sexuality and Marriage, you and I are commanded to keep, and to defend as professing Christians.

        When self-prefessed believers challenge these facts, how could they possibly be driven and speak by the Holy Spirit of Truth…?

        Uou know the answer, you are self-willed and opposing God in your crusade for same-sex sexual beahvior and “marriage” legitimization within Chrisitanity, a grave sin much worse than your seldom lesbian sex because you impact other people lives and consciences in your way, with your claims…

        I am urging you by genuine compassion for you, to stop this and to repent, as your brother in Christ, Moanti, if that holds any sense to you.

        Everybody wants to rule the world, and make their own person the final authority, this is the root of sin, rebellion against God, rejection of God’s created order, intentional design and will, desire for each of us to come to Holiness as His redeemed children….

        My “loving” warning to you, Moanti and readers followjng your lead, if you continue in unbelief, in challenging God’s norms for human sexuality within Marriage “one man, oen woman, for life”, you are dangerously close to deny and refuse God’s offer of forgiveness for yourself, if you do not recognize your behavior to be sinful and FIGHT for its legitimization within our Christian doctrine, are you even aware of this…!?

        I warned you friendly all the time, you think I am joking, taking pelasure in, I do not know what? I am genuinely compassionate to help you and people trapped in sexual immorality, homosexual behavior, but I have my own Chrisitan life to live, and my own sins to adress first and foremost.

        You do not ask me, to, but even so I can not “coach” you to Salvation holding your hand as much as I would want to, this is the Holy Spirit purpose, but I offered you the first steps to help you Moanti, first you should try to contact this “gay Christian” person, Rolo to learn from him, his experience and admirable Christian faith, should you still desire to serve the One TRUE God… Next step, you know and agree with me, you should be extremely careful to implement disclaimers on your website, about all your hypothesis being just that, your wishful intepretation and leave it at that. There is no “alternative perspective” hidden in the original language of Scriptures favorable to same-sex sexual conduct, this is your fruitful and deluded imagination, it is not possible you could be the one “scholar” finding this, and all the others being blind and deaf to reason, wrong, Moanti, the probablity is close to null… The sober truth!!!

        You said, you seldom engage in homosexual sex with your partner, this is the actual sin of homosexual behavior mentioned and condmned by God, so you can thank God, and breath freely about this not enslaving you!!

        Never God expect you to become, or promise to make you “heterosexual”, or to get rid for you of same-sex sexual attraction, temptation… But God promise strenght to endure temptation with the support of the Holy Spirit and fellow Christians, and to forgive you always, should you come to Him and confess your sins, which means litteraly to agree with God on the sinfulness of your faults with God according to His word and His definition of sin, not on your definition…

        “One man, one woman, for life”, homosexualty falls inevitably outside from God’s standard, Moanti, please stop to argue this, for your own sake, you risk your eternity with God on this bet…
        Be humble to live your life and repent when you need should you commit a sin, any sin including gay sex, but please stop your crusade in favor of homosexuality within Christianity… Dear.. This will cause your loss if you continue, and I not want that…. Do you…?

        Next… This person, you dare consider “your wife”, you must walk back where you had the arrogance to think that of your friend, and repent, change your mind on this, stop this, please leave this at the foot fo the Cross it is total heresy, contradicting the word of our LORD on Marriage, you have no right to make your own rules as you see fit your sensibility and desitre, your will, miss Moanti, don’t you FINALLY get it…?

        I tell you, your way to salvation, is to keep a brotherly, in your case a sisterly relationship with your “partner” and her becoming your beloved FRIEND, no “gay sex”, no “gay marriage” or “gay romance” or you are digging your own grave in hell, ruining yourself your chances of redempion by your own choice and worst, these of the woman you care for the most, and weak minded readers of your blog believing and following your words….

        My words are warranted by Scriptures, I am not at all black mailing you or anything, I only care to help you and our comments should have been conducted privately, but anyway… Who cares?

        My conclusion, ans please understand my will to stop dealing with this subject anymore because not my business, to be honest, this sin of sexual immorality, “homosexuality” is one among many, no worse and no better than other sins, that is all there is to know for yourself, you are totally worthy of being saved, of redemption like any other person and sinner, but God being Holy and Grace, and Truth does not want to do anything with us against our will, for the power of Jesus to work it takes a believer to agree with God AUTHORITY to define sin and righteousness for oneself, very simply.

        And this is the leap of faith, the step you miss, instead of being a disciple, a follower of Christ, as far as I can observe your conviction expressing in your comments, you are a self-professed believer grieving the Holy Spirit, I tell you honestly because you are grieving it within me, your stubbornness to hold on your “different view” of same-sex sexual behavior (and “romance”) being acceptable to Jesus Christ, it is totally not, I tell you for your own sake…

        It is up to you. to decide, your freedom of choice, and responsibltiy for teh consequcnes…

        Take care, Moanti sister….
        Your brother in Christ!!!

  82. Christian57 says:
    July 7, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Hmm… I just read more carefully your comment, Moanti, two important things…

    “I’ve expressed that this bothers me, than you are purposefully repeating it to get a reaction out of me, thinking it will make me change my mind and embrace the popular traditional theology again?”

    First, I do not try to change your mind, I am not a magician, I am perfectly aware this is “up to you” to reform and reframe your understanding, should you want to.

    “The popular traditional thelogy”…? Well, Moanti; as I tweet not long ago :

    “Perhaps the old conservative view is not the one with the preconceived notions.”

    Second, I use words “may well be”, “dangerously close to be” in my warning against committing the “unforgvable sin”, this one sin is continual, willful, chosen unbelief in God’s goodness for us, which I remind you is expressed by God’s Laws guiding and protecting us, this is the sin of rejecting God’s offer of redemption, available to all in Jesus Christ sacrifical atonement for one’s sins, agree, correct..?

    http://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html

    Then a person chosing to reject the Biblical teachings of same-sex sexual behavior to BE a sin against God BY HIS LAW no matter how hard you want it not to say this, it does. A person practicing without remorse, and / or promoting homosexuality as good, and not sinful in a vocal, militant manner is dangerously close to continual, willful, chosen unbelief in God’s merciful grace to save one trapped in this sin.

    Does this make sense and speaks TRUTH, is this reasonable, using correct logic…?

    I think it is, or you tell me.

    I never delight (???) in restating this, my purpose was… Well, to warn you, friendly, simply. You read more into it instead of my actual, “loving” intention to warn you for your own sake, this is your decision, and, well, your problem, created by yourself…

    And….

    “You call yourself more of a “FATHER in Christ” to me. You, Christian57, are not God. There is only One Father in Christ. Your judgments are not the final authority. Only God the Father.”

    My words were :

    I feel I act more like a caring, loving FATHER with you than a “brother” in Christ.

    You, yourself made the connection of me calling myself a “FATHER in Christ”, in your “crazy” idea of me sitting on the Throne of God, this was not my words nor my intention. what the…? For your information I was speaking of me feeling like a father for your well being with GOD, again at face value, in the human sense of me, a father……

    Never mind… -_-

    Take care…

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 8, 2015 at 4:41 am

      Dear Christian57,
      First, I must apologize for my misinterpretation of your words…. When you said you “feel more like a FATHER than a brother in Christ” to me… Because of your capitalized word, I put the emphasis on the wrong word, and took these to be in the same category (more like a father than a brother…in Christ.) So this here shows how a reader can take things out of context by putting emphasis on the wrong words and come up with a completely different meaning to the exact same sentence. But anyway, I do apologize for this. I’m not trying to attack your character at all. I’m the one that feels constantly on trial….

      When you even say I have “close to” committing the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, you’ve found my “alarm button” for total mental meltdown. This has always been a fear of mine since I read the verse as a child, as to be absent from Him forever is terrifying. I still am not 100% sure what this sin means because like the gay topic, people have widely different interpretations of what this sin actually entails. Some think it can’t be committed at all anymore (like the link), but others think you can still commit it by calling something that’s from the Spirit, bad… An example commonly given is calling someone who is speaking in tongues in the Spirit as possessed by demons. Usually these people appear in a strange trance and those without this Spiritual gift see it as unusual, just as the onlookers on the day of Pentecost thought they were drunk. But many believe this would constitute as the unforgivable sin. So the thought on what this even is has a varied interpretation…. I’ve been so frightened of ever committing this because it matters to me. So many say “if you are worried you’ve committed it or will commit it, then you haven’t because you care,” and others conclude “a Christian cannot commit it.” But what if they are wrong and we can still commit it? So anyway, this topic is terrifying to me, so saying I’m close to committing the unforgivable sin gets my attention, but also puts me in a state of mental duress and I don’t feel okay at all when I get into these mind states of fear, and I know God did not give us a spirit of fear. So this is just not good for me to fixate on.

      But on the other hand, I think we can all accept as Christians that we know it is unforgivable to die in a state of unbelief, hence rejecting the Holy Spirit (not necessarily blaspheming Him because this would, by definition, blasphemy involves spoken words.) But I do believe and I have not rejected the Holy Spirit. I fully believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit which is within me as a believer, so much so that I couldn’t not believe even if I wanted to! So then this is not close to committing this sin if that is what it is today….. But the more generalized way of seeing it of calling good evil and evil good, if I am guilty of this (if in fact homosexuality is a sin), than I would be forever condemned. So your words scare me. But I do feel God is compassionate to me.

      Speaking of compassion. Do you really feel that compassion can be evil? Not as a whole of course… But to have it for me? I think the verse you shared with Peter and Jesus is a brilliant comparison, if it were comparable. But it seems this was not just an act of compassion on Peters part, but a proclamation of not believing Jesus’ death could happen BECAUSE of God’s merciful compassion. Most translations just say “God forbid” or “far be it from you Lord,” but the actual real Greek words tell a more specific story…. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God is merciful (ἵλεως híleōs) to you, Lord! This must never happen to you!” ἵλεως híleōs means to be merciful and have compassion…. So Peter knew that God has merciful compassion (for God forbids a lack there of) and so in knowing the nature of God, Peter did not believe He would or could allow His Sons death to happen. But we know now that it is because of His great ἵλεως híleōs for us that He let His Son die in our place so that we may have life! So God was not acting without compassion, but with the greatest of all compassion for us! But just as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can’t be performed today since Jesus isn’t still physically walking around performing miracles, I feel that this compassion that tempted Jesus from the cross cannot be replicated today. All attempts were made by satan to keep Jesus from the cross, but Satan failed.

      So compassion is innate within God’s character and the Scriptures proclaim His compassion throughout. With this said, when compassion is stirred up within us, we know that it comes from God (not from the flesh), so we should not rebuke it, but listen. If one is confused, they should pray for guidance on how the God-given compassion can be best given to others, not harden their hearts to the compassion. Jesus said, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” Compassion leads to forgiveness. One may be able to come up with examples of feeling compassion for the sinner, but not compassion for the sin. If a woman kills her husband after years of his violent abuse, one could say, “I feel compassion for this killer,” but would not have compassion on murdering itself by saying, “Poor things, I wish God allowed killers to murder so they could be happy.” But in the case of homosexuality, we can see compassion for both within the body of believers, where I’ve heard it said “I feel compassion for those who aren’t allowed to be with who they love (and commit homosexuality)” or even “I wish it was okay with God for them to commit homosexuality (i.e. be in a committed relationship and all that comes with it).” No one would say the same about murder or any other sin. Jesus demonstrated plenty of exceptions to the traditions in the Law, and every time it was always an act of loving compassion. So this God-given compassion should call the interpretation of its inherent sinfulness into question, especially when it’s dealing with love, something also within the character of God.

      Some other verses to note… God’s character is compassionate: “The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. (Psalm 145:8,9) We are saved by grace through faith due to His loving compassion on us: “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in compassion, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:4,5.) Godly wisdom is full of merciful compassion (not to mention absent of partiality): “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of merciful compassion and good fruits, without partiality and hypocrisy.” (James 3:17) God shows us compassion despite our mistakes in the flesh: “they were not faithful to his covenant. Yet he, being compassionate, atoned for their iniquity and did not destroy them; he restrained his anger often and did not stir up all his wrath. He remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passes and comes not again.” (Psalm 78:37-39) We may have earthly punishments, but His everlasting love and compassion exceeds all wrath: “In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,” says the LORD, your Redeemer.” Isaiah 54:8. So we know as followers and believers of Jesus: “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.” 1 Thessalonians 5:9-11….

      I wish you would read more carefully my comments, because then I feel that you could be more impartial when you see things as they are as a whole. You call me biased because I am gay, but I could call your interpretation bias because you’re straight and even more biased because of having had a very negative traumatic encounter dealing with a homosexual act. If you could understand sexual orientation more (that it’s not man-made, other than by name), then I feel you might be able to have more wisdom to see what is really being taught in the Scriptures on this and how the traditional view is in violation of to the law of love. And I am not confused into thinking that the law of love is the law of romantic love, but that all of this condemnation has caused unloving acts of all kinds… Examples are given quite well in John’s last comment which I have just read.

      When I say this, I am not meaning, “my way is right and you are wrong,” but rather, if you saw every piece of truth of my experience and could be open to see the FULL alternate perspective in it’s complete entirety, than maybe I would be able to accept your conclusions as the right answer. But your stubbornness to barely read what I’ve written does not help me have someone on the outside to weigh the two objectively and know that it is a sound conclusion. Again, I am not the sole person who “figured this out,” and think “I’m the only one who sees it.” Other theologians express these same ideas based on linguistic and contextual interpretation and ancient cultural considerations. God obviously reveals things throughout different times to His people, and “knowledge shall increase” is in the Scriptures as an end times prophecy! This means people become smarter and understand more now than ever before! So do not chalk everything up to manmade ideas when God reveals things in His timing. So the major increase in gays now feeling safe to come to Christ because of affirming doctrine is bad in your opinion?

      Regardless of what you choose to see or not see, another way of interpreting these verses does exist and is not without reason. So it does make things more difficult. Had there been no evidence to suggest these interpretations, I would have never adopted them.

      Lastly, I will say this. Thank you for your care for me and willingness to help guide me in the direction you feel is good and correct. I will say that in the least, the Bible promotes heterosexual unions and all mention of homosexual acts are associated with negative things (rape, idolatry, prostitution, lust, etc.) There is no mention of gay relationships at all, in a negative or positive light. Evidence exists both for and against them. As a previous author in one of your links said “the points must be weighed cumulatively.” With only one part well studied, the rest becomes easily attacked without all the knowledge put together. My conclusion as of now? I pray for forgiveness for any wrongdoing, as I do all of this with good intentions out of compassion for those that have been injured by its affects and moreso by the reactions of people who read it and use it to abuse and exclude potential followers. But most of all, I rely on God’s perfect grace, mercy and compassion to forgive my transgressions and believe that His power is made perfect in my weaknesses. I still stand that His grace is sufficient, that His blood is strong enough to save even me.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      Reply
      • Christian57 says:
        July 8, 2015 at 2:32 pm

        Moanti….

        Thank you, I do not accuse you, but diligently draw your attention, to be very careful every step you take with God’s moral laws…. Please note I also warned Gary and John R for themselves, not just you and really not for causing you or them wrong…

        I believe the same, worry to not commit the unforgivable sin is a positive sign, you likely have not… I also believe it is related to call the good, evil and evil, good, a state of permanent disbelief in God’s laws and Will, working to guide and to protect, not to deprive us, in plain truth the “new” forbidden fruits exist as every sin God declared his People not to eat, for our current lives…

        I politely remind you why I believe homosexuality is a sin, simply every sexual ethics, moral laws are taking root, derives from God’s will to forward and protect His blessed union of the man and the woman in Holy Marriage…

        The family unit is the building block of Humankind, and of society. this must be protected at all cost against any and all corruption, perversion of its design and purpose…

        It makes perfect sense, same gender sexual intimacy, among other sexual sins always fall outside of God’s standard, norm for Humankind, set conditons for the family unit prosperity and always harms it both for self and the neighbor, as it remains God’s will for every person to come to Him and eventually enjoy sexual and romantic bonding, within a fulfilling monogamous, heterosexual Marriage, eventually procreate new lives…

        I understand you struggle to agree with God’s design decision, because you experience, same gender attractions to be positive for yourself…

        This answer online, convinces me… I could not express it in another way, this is totally in line with my / the Christian doctrine, belief, faith and Biblical Scripture, the Holy Spirit achieving to convince me, for msyelf this is the Godly Truth, on this…

        http://www.gotquestions.org/God-love-and-homosexuality.html

        You know… God does not create “homosexuals”, there is no mention of this “species” in Scripture… What you experience has been experienced by individuals of the Biblical time just as well, our human nature is the same as theirs…

        And still, our LORD Jesus Christ re-issued and confirmed God’s design decision, and restricted, human sexual intimacy and romantic bonding, to “heterosexual” Marriage…

        This is not negotiable…. Jesus, supports it, what the LORD build will prevail.. Amen.

        Lastly…

        Homosexuality… Moanti, it is unthinkable for me, I am French, I am not immersed in the “pop culture” of America the same you are, I can not relate to your experience…

        I mean no offense, I simply bow my knee to God, not to people involved in what I trust my God declared a sin, that is the homosexual conduct, regardless of who, and why, because this always hurt our human, maculine or feminine gender boundaries, Godly purposes, I can confirm you this by my past, traumatic experience….

        I stand on the Biblical Truth, God’s plan and norm for His children, human sexuality and Marriage, is “one man, one woman, for life”, for our common, best interest… Amen.

        Christians, to my understanding are people redeemed by Christ, now serving God by welcoming His Authority to guide their conduct, accepting whoelheartedly to conform their lives to God’s laws empowered by the Holy spirit to do so, by love for God….

        Let’s keep this simply simple for teh record…

        Assuming Moses’s words in the OT, and Paul’s words in the NT where not inspired by God, for the sake of argument…

        Now, direct your interest, focus, on the LORD…. Please know, our perfect LORD… Jesus, re-affirmed, God’s original design, purpose and WILL for human sexuality and Marriage, this is what I am holding on believing, and I am calling you to do the same, as your fellow Christian brother…

        Should you believe our LORD perfect Will as I do, this does not mean you must “change” and become “heterosexual”, it does mean you must avoid “gay sex” and “gay romance”, diligently and enjoy sisterly partnership, very simply and I trust, in all fairness and agreement with both your personal sensibility,AND serving our caring, loving God, loving Him by keeping His laws, commands, instructions for our Humankind, as well as paying tribute, proper respect to the masculine, and feminine gender DIGNITY, Godly purpose as god desgined them…. Amen.

        Should one fall in sin, God is waiting you, with open arms saying… “nothing you confess could make me love you less”.. Therefore anybody reading me who is burdened with shame, and guilt, pease turn to God and confess, this means litteraly to agree with God on your sinfulness and guiltiness in the name of Jesus-Christ, and be forgiven….

        God promises (and God is not a man / woman to lie!) to forgive whoever confess, and to provide the strenght to endure through temptation and trial, to send His support by the GIFT of the Holy Spirit, working slowly but surely, sometimes miraculously still to this day and age with one to repent from their sin(s), meaning litteraly to change one’s mind, wrong action and direction and fiinally serve God in Christ’s Righteousness.. Amen

        Take care Moanti, this settles our discussion on the “gay topic”, please I have nothing else to add anymore personally, and welcome to be friends naturally.

        I have yet to devote my full attention to this “new world order “movie, will do…

        I value kindess and respect the most as being “Christ-like”, no matter the diagreement…

        I am glad, you too. my sister in Christ… Farewell for now.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 8, 2015 at 7:11 pm

        Dear Christian57,
        Thanks again for everything. I am praying about all of this and do hold to what you say as a serious matter. I think it’s probably best that we avoid this topic again for now. If you want to talk about other things, I would be happy to continue our friendship and be of support. Let me know when you get a chance to view that movie and then I will email you so we can talk about it and whatever else that’s not related to the gay topic. Okay? You’re in my prayers! Much love to you my brother in Christ!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Christian57 says:
        July 9, 2015 at 9:32 pm

        Hello, Moanti.

        Thank you, and welcome… I will watch the “New World Order” movie you shared with me, someday later and tell you my opinion about it.

        Eventually discussing it with you… Publicly through comment is fine.

        I ask you to please not take offense, I pray you can understand my reaction, but I am reserved in my trust with you on the questions of sharing the same Holy Spirit I rely on, of knowing the same Jesus I follow, of receiving the same Gospel I welcome, exercising the same Christian Faith I believe, and worshipping the same God I serve.

        I am forwarding one last article that moved me, as my final contribution for you, and interested readers of your blog on the “gay topic” in regard to “Christianity”…

        http://barbwire.com/2014/11/04/bible-really-says-homosexuality/

        Take best care of yourself please, I pray for your well being (your current toothache) and most importantly, for your good and right evolution with God… Farewell, my friend.

  83. Gary says:
    July 8, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    I think when all is said and done, we need to realize that Christians57’s opinions on Biblical passages are just that – his opinions.

    Martin Luther had his opinion on what the Bible meant, so much so that his opinions influenced the first English translation of the Bible, the Tyndale Bible. It seems every Pope has either a conservative or a liberal interpretation of Scripture. I’ve read many books on the Bible, from John Boswell’s books, to Elaine Pagals’ books, to Bart Ehrman’s books, to Richard Friedman’s books. They all have opinions.

    Even back in the days of the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, there were differences of opinion as to the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father. In fact, several of the attending bishops came to blows during their heated arguments before they finally came to a consensus as to what was the nature of the Son of God. Yes, a consensus of opinions,

    Moanti has made it quite clear that this blog “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” and offers “a new perception of this controversial topic.” Even Born-Again Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter believes in this alternative perspective, as he so clearly stated yesterday..

    Christian57 has to realize that he’s never going to convince me or anyone who holds, as Moanti states, an “alternative perspective” on Scripture of his opinions.

    I, myself, continue to be suspect that, as he has stated, his previous traumatic history has no influence on this subject. But that’s just my opinion, and it’s not going to change no matter what he says.

    Reply
    • Christian57 says:
      July 8, 2015 at 6:46 pm

      “One man, one woman, for life” is God, and Jesus-Christ OPINION on the purpose of Humankind sexuality and Marriage. and it’s not going to change no matter what you, or anybody says. Amen.

      Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 8, 2015 at 10:59 pm

      Dear Gary,
      Thanks for your comments! This is very interesting that former president Jimmy Carter came out with this…. Thanks for letting us know! He makes the point that it is not harming anyone. So the only harm is if the Bible prohibits it, but again, this seems to go against all other sins in defining it as harming. We can also see other churches adopting the alternative perspective, such as the Episcopal church most recently. But I also agree with Carter in that those churches that have a conviction against same-sex marriage should not be forced to perform them. We must uphold religious freedom when it comes to individual decision making in churches. Gay couples can go somewhere else more welcoming to get married and don’t have to go to Westboro Baptist and the like… 😛 What do you think of this?
      -Moanti

      Reply
  84. Gary says:
    July 9, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    Moanti,

    Yes, I agree with you that those churches that have a conviction against same-sex marriage should not be forced to perform them. Just like any wedding, the church venue for a gay or lesbian couple deserves some thought, just as it would for any straight couple. Can you imagine what it must have been like for an interracial couple after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision to find a church venue? When my partner and I got married in 2013, we had a nondenominational minister officiate at the ceremony with one of our sons as the best man.

    I think it’s interesting to note also, as far as gay marriage is concerned, that Paul, or any of the New Testament writers, never mentioned homosexual marriage. With all the prohibitions in the Bible, all the “thou shall not,” and “that is an abomination,” you’d think that Paul would have said something to the effect that “a man and a man shall not marry together,” or “two women will not enter into a marriage, that is an abomination!”

    Certainly Paul would have known about gay marriage, since his contemporary, the Emperor Nero, was married to two men, Sporus and Pythagorus, and those events were celebrated throughout the Empire. Then much later, in 222 AD, the emperor Elagabalus married his driver, Hierocles, and an athlete, Zoticus, to much fanfare. In fact, gay marriage must have been known and tolerated by early Christians since it wasn’t until December 16, 342 AD that the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans specifically outlawed marriages between men with what later became to be known as the Theodossian Code 9.7.3.. The outlawing was not inspired by Biblical writings, it was a secular, or civil, law. Perhaps you mention that in this blog and I have not read it, but I think it speaks volumes about the tolerant nature of the early Church and indeed, if it really was an abomination for two committed men or women to share a bed, and not as your “alternative perspective” states, that what Paul, and indeed, Leviticus, is really referring to, which is male Pagan ritual prostitutes.

    the first 300 years of church history is as fascinating. Oh, but for a time machine!.

    Reply
  85. Gary says:
    July 10, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Moanti,

    I just realized that you montioned the fact that there is no prohibition against gay marriage and mentioned Nero’s marriages in a response to John R above. I didn’t see that before. What a coincidence.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 10, 2015 at 7:51 pm

      Hi Gary!
      Haha! I know, I thought that was really interesting, because at first I thought you were expanding upon what I had said, but then realized you hadn’t read what I wrote to John. Also interesting too because there were a few more things you said that I had actually typed out to John, but then deleted before sending to make it shorter. It was still regarding details to the Nero thing, but still interesting we thought of the same thing, and it just occurred to me that same day as well about Paul being a witness to it and not prohibiting same-sex marriage! *insert Twilight Zone theme song* 😉

      Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 10, 2015 at 8:10 pm

      P.S. Actually it wasn’t just the Nero thing. I had written in my draft also about the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constance outlawing same- sex marriage in 342AD! I guess we had the same line of thinking!

      Reply
  86. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Actually if you were to look at deut 24:1 it states a man must give his wife divorce paper(kerithuth) and than send her away(shalach). If he Shalach without the (kerithuth) she would legally be married and have committed adultery.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 12, 2015 at 4:58 pm

      Hello again Angela,
      Indeed this is true. But as we know, not everything in “the law” was from God (as Jesus Himself admits!), as some were laws from Moses. One can physically leave or “put away” their spouse without a certificate of divorce, but one would not give a certificate of divorce and not leave or “put away” their spouse. So when we speak of “putting away,” this could be done with or without the certificate. Note that I am speaking in terms of behavior, not what’s written in the law as allowable or not. Consider the below verses in all it’s context:

      Matthew 5:31,32
      31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce (apostasion).’
      32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces (apoluo) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced (apoluo) woman commits adultery.
      Because Jesus said, “But I say to you” suggests it’s different than what the above law stated initially. The “but” or “however” is “δέ deh” and means “on the other hand,” yet it can also mean “also,” so I guess it could mean either…. But the context seems to be “on the other hand,” but I guess it’s up to the eye of the one who reads it.

      Matthew 19:7-9
      7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce (apostasion) and to send her away (apoluo)?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce (apoluo) your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces (apoluo) his wife [assuming this is with or without the certificate], except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
      Now this verse gives much stronger support that the δέ deh meant “on the other hand,” because He states that “from the beginning it was not so,” and it was because of the “hardness of their hearts” that apoluo (“putting away”) was allowed. Also, the Pharisees mentioned apostasion (the certificate), but Jesus disagrees with them on this statement even when the apostasion is mentioned.

      Matthew 10:2-12
      2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce (apoluo) his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce (apostasion) and to send her away (apoluo).” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
      7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces (apoluo) his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces (apoluo) her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
      This still supports the previous verse and it seems that anyone who apoluo (not mentioning apostasion) and remarries commits adultery. So rather than saying, “but if you give the certificate (apostasion) then it’s okay to put away (apoluo) your spouse,” He said the putting away (apoluo) is not recognized unless in cases of porneia (and Paul later goes on to give another exception when it comes to an unbeliever married to a believer who wants to separate.) Again, speaking of human behavior and not what is stated in the law, one could put away their spouse and not physically hand her a certificate of divorce, but one would not give a certificate of divorce and stay with their spouse (in other words, not “putting them away.”) So “putting away” seems to cover either instance, wether one gives certificate or not. But I can’t imagine that God would promote a marriage where a spouse is horribly abusive, so I can imagine that although not mentioned, it would seem to be the loving thing to do to separate and allow remarriage. It seems to be a theme in all the Gospels that Pharisees state what was in the law, and Jesus says “actually, it’s this.” Some may say what He says is more strict, but we see many instances that He is more lenient too. What guides all of this is the law of love. So it may have been that the Pharisees were marrying and divorcing without any regard to the woman’s wellbeing. So to stay together would be the more loving thing to do…. But I conclude that when Jesus does appear “stricter” it’s to show that NO HUMAN can perfectly follow His laws. I feel He said these things to show the great need for a savior from our sins because we are all going to commit them in some way no matter what. Anyone who has claimed to have “repented of all sin” and “turned away from ever sinning again” on their own merit is lying. So our only hope is the Salvation offered by Jesus who imputes us with His righteousness, so that when God looks at us, we are washed, sanctified and justified and fully forgiven for all that we have done that is wrong in His sight. I feel that Jesus was showing the Pharisees that they were guilty without even realizing it, as they presented themselves as perfect on the outside, but they had not been washed on the inside. Instead of believe His teachings and sacrifice as the way of salvation, they simply rejected Him and His message and continued to live by their traditions of the law which was not at all meant to save them. Paul says that the law shows us our sin, and we die under the law. So we need the grace of Jesus to ever be clean in the sight of God. So for those Christians who have divorced and remarried, I believe fully that God has washed and sanctified both of them. Although the union on it’s own might be considered adulterous (if this is the correct translation), both Christians are still saved by His blood regardless. This is my conviction on these things.

      Reply
  87. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    But Apoluo is normally used in separation not divorce. Normally you would apoulo a woman if she cheats not if you wanted to divorce her. Also they asked Jesus if it was lawful to put away his wife not divorce his wife they are two different things. Put away which Joseph was doing was saved for sexual morality. Divorce and put away are very much different. God divorce Israel. They were asking was it okay to put away their wives for any reason. Jesus is saying no expected in adultery

    Reply
  89. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    http://www.academia.edu/3622738/What_Jesus_Really_Said_Putting_Away_the_Mistranslations_about_Divorce

    Think about it like this what did Moses law to give a divorce bill and send away. They can’t be used interchangeable. They are very different. They wanted to ask if they could put away their wives not divorce them. Why? Because the women to support themselve would get money back without this money they could not support themselves so they would married and what happens? Death

    Montai notice this
    32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces (apoluo) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced (apoluo) woman commits adultery.

    Jesus had said this

    31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces (apoluo) his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce (apostasion)

    .’So apoluo can’t be used to mean divorce here for than he could have repeated apostasion.

    32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces/puts away (apoluo) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced/puts away (apoluo) woman commits adultery.

    he is saying whoever put away their wives will make their wives adultery for they are still legally married to their husband think about it Jesus would have used apostasion not apoluo we have seen it many times Deut shows that the two are different. Many have fallen into they mistake.Jesus used the word apostasion and than used apoulo this means the two are different Jesus is telling them to give their wives divorce papers but if they send away?seprated they will have committed a crime for the women are married to them and they did not give them a divorce paper so the women would have to marry again.

    Even you saw this did not Jesus state to Divorce their wives they have to give hem papers but if they did not they would make their wives adultery.

    Reply
  91. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    To many Bible versions translated the two words wrong look how different this one is no divorce for apoulo never meant divorceMatthew 5:31
    –
    32
    “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away
    his wife, let him give her a
    writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
    away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
    commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
    (KJV)
    This is a major difference. sending their wives away is the heartless thing to do.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 12, 2015 at 6:36 pm

      I do see that there is a difference between putting away (verb) and divorce certificate (noun). I just find it strange that Jesus did not emphasize on “one must give the certificate” to be valid. I do get what you’re saying totally, but it seems that the wording of this other verse puts it into question:

      Matthew 19:7-9
      7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce (apostasion) and to send her away (apoluo)?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce (apoluo) your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

      So this said Moses allowed them to put away (appluo) because of the hardness of their hearts, and to the reader it would seem he meant the Deuteronomy reference (what the Pharisees had just said) was what Moses allowed…. But you might be totally right, as this does seem to be a genuine alternate perspective, as maybe what was stated was not what Moses allowed, but rather the certificate was put into place to discourage just leaving as he had allowed before in the past?

      I think what makes it more difficult is also Matthew 19:7-9, which re-states the above and goes onto say that “from the beginning of creation,” this was not so… And says one should “cleave” to their spouse and “not separate,” as they have become one with them. (Separate being a different word here than “put away.”) But it would still suggest that the couple should stay together, or at least that’s what was intended in the begining of creation for there to have not been separation or divorce at all…. Yet this would be in the Garden of Eden where there was no sin, and we are living in a corrupted age of sin, so perhaps Jesus was just mentioning this that in the beginning there was no intent that Adam and Eve should separate (or any other human born in the perfect sinless environment)?

      I must admit that the more I read this in the context that you’ve presented, the more it seems it could be as you have shown, at least in the manner that remarriage is not adultery in every case. But my question is why would Jesus give an exception to having the requirement of giving the divorce certificate if it’s just a piece of paper (or papyrus in those days) if the spouse commits porneia? If the spouse commits porneia, why not just give her the certificate and show ones displeasure for the guilty spouse and leave? This would suggest that the certificate was somehow a hassle and perhaps required payment of sort. Could it be because back then, it was not only a proclamation of separation, but it also required the husband to pay the wife he was divorcing or vise versa? If this is the the case, then this alternative perspective makes more sense because it would be understandable that a man should not have to pay any money to the wife if the wife was unfaithful or deceptive about her virginity (due to already paying the virgin bride price)…. But no mention of payment with divorce on the husband or wife’s end is stated in Scripture that I can find at the moment, so I’m not sure. Do you know? I have yet to be able to read the link you sent, but I will check it out when I can. (My phone is about to die so I’ll have to charge it up first.) So I think the way this perspective could be solidified is if the certificate of divorce required some type of payment, which if it did, it should be in the Bible somewhere. Please let me know if you find any reference to this, or if you can think of any other reason as to why not giving the certificate for porneai makes sense.

      Thanks again for showing this to us Angela! It is really quite interesting!

      Reply
  92. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against he

    Apoulo was never meant to mean divorce. Like in Deut give papers and send away but if they weren’t to send away with papers it was adultery. Matthew clearly shows that Jessu wasn’t speaking about divorce for he spoke about it in 31 stating you must give your wives papers to divorce than but if you don’t and put than away wives will be committing adultery. Think about it women had no rights the money they were giving was the bride pay until they got married. Jesus wasn’t saying it was wrong to be divorced but rather it was wrong to put away you give the women no home and no money

    Reply
  93. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    I hope you don’t hate me

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 12, 2015 at 7:01 pm

      Dearest Angela,
      I do not and could not hate you at all! *hugs*! This is just a new topic to me, so I’m trying to research it at all angles before I commit to a final conclusion. I think what you have said does make sense. I just still wonder about the porneia exception. I know that the wife would be left with no money, but what about the case where a woman “puts away” her husband without a certificate? I guess the porneia clause isn’t mentioned here: “12 and if she puts away (apoluo) her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” And is only mentioned in regards to the man with the wife: “But I say to you that everyone who puts away (apoluo) his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a put away (apoluo) woman commits adultery.” So maybe it does just concern the men due to the bride price. Again, I’m sorry as I’m just learning of this. I’ve never heard of this alternate perspective before but find it really interesting. Thank you for all of your information about this! I’m sure it would come as great relief for those stuck in a harmful marriage, but could be misused if one didn’t take marriage as seriously because of it. Okay, my phone is really going to die so I have to charge it now, but I always look forward to more of your comments and highly value what you have to say! 🙂
      Your sister in Christ with love (no hate!),
      Moanti

      Reply
    • John R says:
      July 13, 2015 at 8:36 am

      Hi Angela. Interesting points about the possible difference between divorce and remarriage. The article assumes that Jesus could not have contradicted the Mosaic Law, which is based off of the idea that every law given in the Torah comes from God, and also that the Torah in its entirety is infallible. I’ve already given my position on that, and I think there is ample evidence that verbal plenary inspiration is not the best way to describe the inspiration of Scripture (that every word in the Bible today essentially came from God through human hands). But without going into a Scriptural inspiration debate, there is a problem with the last article you gave.

      They support divorce, saying it ends the marriage. Marriage is defined in Gen 2:24 as “leaving father and mother, cleaving to each other, and becoming one flesh.” So divorce effectively annuls all of that in the writer’s opinion. They no longer cleave to each other, and they are no longer one flesh, but two flesh again.

      So then, what did Jesus mean when he said “from the beginning, it was not so…. what God has put together, let man not put away/separate?” It would appear that while the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a Mosaic Law debate, Jesus appealed to a higher law, the original statement made regarding marriage for the first couple, Adam and Eve. In essence, Jesus sidestepped the issue by going to a previous law that applies to all of humanity, which would naturally take precedence over the latter Mosaic Law. God couldn’t have given a law to all of humanity and then contradicted Himself later in the Mosaic code, right?

      The Pharisees knew this and were forced to back down.

      So at the least, we have to admit that Jesus is saying divorce is not recommended, if not forbidden.

      Now if divorce completely separates the marriage, including one flesh, then what was the meaning of Jesus’ words when He says that “everyone who divorces their wife makes her commit adultery, and a woman who divorces her husband and remarries commits adultery?”

      If divorce completely severs the marital bond, then how can any divorced person commit adultery? And if divorce completely severs the marital bond, then why were the disciples so amazed at Jesus’ words, saying “Truly then it is better not to marry”? After all, if we can divorce without consequences, then their words seem to make no sense, and Jesus wasn’t actually saying anything different than what the Pharisees were saying.

      I think that divorce severs the vow and it severs the ” cleaving ” part of marriage, but it doesn’t sever the one flesh part, because “God has put [them] together.” This is why you can commit adultery beyond divorce.

      Now as far as the loophole that Jesus gives in Matthew, or the fact that a man could murder his wife and then be free to remarry, there are good explanations.

      Remember that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary because he though she had committed adultery? This shows that adultery wasn’t always punished by death, so a man could actually divorce because of adultery, much like today, despite the Mosaic code prescribing the death penalty.

      And as far as murdering your spouse, while that’s technically true, the article fails to mention the fact that murderers were generally not allowed to remarry since they were executed lol.

      Reply
      • Angela says:
        July 13, 2015 at 9:48 am

        But how could Joseph divorce Mary if she and Joseph weren’t married. Once again divorce and put away aren’t the same. Mary was engaged to Joseph and He wanted to put Mary away. Jesus himself states that send away has to be done with divorce paper and so If do divorce papers were giving they were still married

        http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-put-away.htm

      • Angela says:
        July 13, 2015 at 9:56 am

        http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-exception-clause-3.htm

        Go to marriage and divorce and click on articles to read more on this view

        Putting away was never divorce look at deut 24:1 a man who divorce his wife must give her divorce paper and send away

      • Angela says:
        July 13, 2015 at 9:59 am

        hen a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

        It clearly shows remarriage is not a sin. Jesus clearly stated remember the Moses law . Meaning the law of divorce send away is not the same as divorce

      • Angela says:
        July 13, 2015 at 10:07 am

        http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-exception-clause-3.htm

        Putting away was only for adultery never divorce. If a man wanted to divorce his wife he must give her legally papers and send her out- put away shalach is out away but never divorce why? For they were still legally married but divorce + put away/ send away is divorce

        http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-put-away-fornication.htm

        http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-adultery.htm

      • Angela says:
        July 13, 2015 at 10:08 am

        But adultery were also killed

      • John R says:
        July 14, 2015 at 9:31 am

        Angela, yes, the law required the death penalty for adulterers, but in the story of Joseph and Mary, Joseph didn’t want to press charges against Mary. In Jewish law, you had to have 2 male witnesses to accuse anyone of a crime. If you couldn’t get witnesses, you couldn’t kill anyone.

        So here, just putting Mary away quietly, instead of a big court case and divorce, could have actually been better for Mary, because she would have been labeled as an adulterer and possibly killed. At the least, no man would want to marry her after that. Joseph wanted to avoid all that, and give Mary a chance for life, so can it really be said that a legal divorce is always the better option?

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 14, 2015 at 4:03 pm

        Dear John (and note to Angela),
        First, I so appreciate your long comment! You may have won the award for the longest comment ever! Haha! So congratulations! You’ve won, well, me saying thanks! Hehe! Anyway, I did carefully read your entire comment and you have some very interesting things to say. I did particularly think the Samaritan woman interpretation is very interesting and I’ve never heard it. So kudos! 🙂 Did you just think of that while you were writing the comment to me? Wow! It does seem like Jesus to be clever in the way He confronts things, so His words could mean this since no gender was attributed to the “one she now has.” (And makes me laugh because it reminds me of myself playing the
        pronoun game when I don’t really want people to know about my relationship, so “she” becomes “they.” Haha!) So it’s like when people ask me “do you have a boyfriend?” And I say “no I don’t have a boyfriend.” But it would be like Jesus replying “it’s true when you say you don’t have a boyfriend. The one you are now with is not your boyfriend.” And 5 husbands before? Clearly that wasn’t working out well for her wether out of choice or bad luck. So perhaps you are correct in your clever interpretation. How funny! Haha! Either way, it could fit…

        So I will have to reply in more length later to your longer comment, as I’m working on an article right now. So for this comment, it now has to do with what you and Angela are talking about. So I’ll get to what you said at more length later for sure. Ok?

        In regards to Angela’s theory, I would suggest you (John) carefully look at every verse that shows these 2 different words (both in Hebrew and in Greek.) Before I did this, I couldn’t fully grasp the logic behind it because of ingrained beliefs as to the opposite. But once I did understand it, wow! Mind blowingly different! So I think with any good Biblical study, in pursuit to find the truth, one must fully look in the perspective of alternate and opposing views, not just halfway, but fully to see what could fit (and obviously most importantly to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.) It would seem that “put away” and “divorce” are 2 different words, because one is a verb and the other is a noun and they are often used in the same sentence, so we shouldn’t just say “it’s the same” and move on without closely looking into it.

        In regards to Mary and Joseph, I would say that there wouldn’t have been big court cases back then for divorce, because although 2 or 3 witnesses had to be called for criminal cases, one could “divorce” (put away-verb) a wife for any and every reason as long as the certificate (divorce-noun) was given. In this view, the adulterous would not possess this certificate, so if one had the certificate, they actually would have not be mistakenly labeled as an adulterer (as you suggested) because that assumes the traditional view which ignores the certificate distinction. (So in totally looking at Angela’s view in all cases, it also fits.) Instead, their lack of certificate would be cause to question their morality, and most would not seek to marry one that had no document. So the divorce (or put away) “quietly” part was out of Joseph’s righteous compassion, as to him, seeing that Mary was pregnant would have obviously put her at risk for the death penalty because she would have been seen as committing adultery (or at least some form of porneia) had he gone for a divorce certificate and they saw she was pregnant. If the court thought Joseph got her pregnant, than that would also look bad on him to be leaving her alone with a baby on the way with no husband to help her. Perhaps facing the courts would have gotten them both in trouble. So how could he literally divorce her quietly? Is there a small court somewhere that would have not put her to death? In Angela’s view, Moses gave the law that a man had to give a divorce certificate so their was no question if the woman was married or not, because when she was simply “put away” without document, this caused her to commit adultery if she tried to be with someone else (because she was still legally married). So in her view, Jesus was saying that Moses gave them the requirement for officially divorcing with a document and this law had to be given because “out of the hardness of their hearts,” they were letting their wives go without the certificate and leaving them destitute without ability to remarry without committing adultery and probably caused them to become a concubine or prostitute. With the certificate, this didn’t only show that their marriage had been nullified, but it also gave the woman back her dowry payment (looking historically.) So the woman who was simply “put away” was left without money and still considered married to the partner who left her. But the woman who was given a certificate of divorce had proof in public record that she was single PLUS she had money to get her by. Also any seemingly “shock” of new revelation by the Pharisees and disciples seems to be that they didn’t understand why the certificate was important because they thought the result was the same (because in both cases, the couple separates), like the thought “why should it make such a difference?” It seems their hearts were too hard to understand why Moses had to give this command and they didn’t see how much “putting away” their spouse was hurting not only their spouse, but their biggest shock reaction was that they were also hurting themselves because now Jesus had pointed out that THEY THEMSELVES have ALSO become an adulterer by not officially ending the marriage. So they may have thought they were getting away with dumping their wives without consequence, but they actually became morally accountable for doing so and finally understood what they were doing was wrong and had morally corrupted them self too. (Hence their marveling reaction.) This is what Angela is saying as far as I can gather. (Angela, please correct me if I’m wrong.) On a side note, if Mary and Joseph weren’t considered married yet, but just betrothed, then maybe she would be considered as having committing porneia (not adultery), in which case “putting her away” quietly would have been exactly legal in the eyes of Jesus!

        Regarding the last sentence, when you mentioned Jesus’ words in comment to Angela, the word there is “put away.” So in this view that Angela presents, Jesus was saying “everyone who puts away their wife (without a divorce certificate) makes her commit adultery (because she’s still married), and a woman who puts away her husband (without a divorce certificate) and remarries (even though she is still married) commits adultery (because she hasn’t divorced her husband.)” Does that make sense? So it would seem that the exception clause of porneia does the bond breaking for that couple, and no re-payment is given to the offending party, so they are left moneyless and unable to legally remarry which is their punishment. So this view still upholds the importance of monogamy and gave consequence to the one who committed sexual sin with others while married. Yet I must admit that in our current day, we probably wouldn’t feel as morally bound and deterred from divorce under this interpretation, but both have their merits.

        Now I must say that I am prayerfully considering both of your views, as each have good points. I don’t particularly favor one view over the other out of any bias, so this is good. Both have valid points to consider. I’m only describing Angela’s view more here because I think it’s hard to mentally grasp until you have the “aha” moment where you see it’s not contradictory within any verse (unless you’re confusing the 2 words without realizing), so both what you say and what she says could work, yet they are both two very different ways to approach the Scripture about marriage. When we confront such a thing, I think God allows for us to be guided by personal conviction. As always, Romans 14 is so key.

        I must go for now, but will write more when I can! Please give me a while to sort it all out, as I will have to re-read to properly reply, and at 17 pages it will take me a while! Haha! 🙂 Thanks again for all of your comments!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • John R says:
        July 14, 2015 at 9:39 pm

        Oh, and Moanti,

        No I didn’t just think of the Samaritan woman being with a woman when I wrote you. But I did realize while writing you that Jesus’ words don’t seem to actually fit his usually explicit “go forth and sin not” statements, which if this is really am example of Jesus dealing with a homosexual, would mean a LOT to how we’re supposed to treat the issue. Initially, I had trouble believing my own interpretation, because as I said, the only options were that she was living with a man but non-sexually, which was very unlikely, or she was living with a woman sexually, which was only moderately more likely. But then I thought about the circumstances, the fact that she’d had 5 men before, and then the fact that in this day, most didn’t even consider lesbian sex real sex because no one penetrated the other (yeah kind of a sexist definition). So females living together sexually was less likely to be condemned because 1) females lived together non-sexually too, in virgin houses and such things, so that wouldn’t be cause for too much alarm, and 2) even if they had sex, it wouldn’t be really considered sex to them, so that too wouldn’t have been too much cause for alarm either. Now I’m going off of the common Greco-Roman view of sex, so that may not be applicable to Samaritans as a whole.

        Anyway, yeah it’s interesting that Jesus would apply Echeis, having in ownership, to the last relationship too, to a lesbian couple.

        It’s also interesting that the LGBT Christians don’t use this as an example of a possible lesbian relationship in the Bible. It just goes to show how ingrained certain interpretations can become to where we don’t even question them, even from an opposing side.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 14, 2015 at 5:02 pm

        On second thought, Angela’s view and your one-flesh view still could fit together if porneia is really only some type of sexual offense before the engaged couple has actually become married by “one flesh.” (Not porneia as just a generalized sexual immorality wether married or single, because in your for-life-one-flesh view, one really couldn’t commit “sexual immorality” that wasn’t truly considered adultery if they are married by sex alone the very first time, unless porneia is some obscure act like masturbating with a tree [forgive my blatantness!]) So separation at the engagement period would require no certificate of divorce because technically, the offending party belongs to another person and isn’t morally eligible for marriage with whom they are engaged. But Angela’s view still gives room for breaking the one-flesh bond on an official basis so that adultery is not committed, while Jesus still promotes that one should stay in their first one-flesh bond if they are able to do so. But as we know, not all one-flesh bonds are healthy to stay in, but probably the less one-flesh bonds made, the better, because as you say, one does make an intimate physical connection which can’t really be thrown out from their life and mind completely, as what happened, happened, and they will have to live with the knowledge of knowing more than one for the rest of their lives (which would still happen in the mind of one who’s spouse died and remarried, as they would have known more than one person.) So either way, both of your views could fit together for the most part, so as long as you didn’t further consider the traditional view of re-marriage in every case (even after literal legal divorce) as being considered literal adultery. Because then any new marriage would be illegitimate in the eyes of God and they would have multiple living spouses (moral or not), but yet if their first living spouse died, all of a sudden their adulterous illegitimate re-marriage becomes holy? (I am speaking in the traditional perspective.) If anything, that would be what would encourage the murder of the first spouse! Considering both views together as a middle ground would have to allow that marriage starts at the one-flesh bond, but legal divorce would break it and allow for a new marriage starting at the new one-flesh bond. If we just considered the first one-flesh bond as binding forevermore, then any additional bonds made would not ever connect as two becoming one. (And one can become one with a prostitute apparently, so how does this fit in?) And the one-flesh view without considering these things still puts the past allowance of polygamy into question, even if it were for procreative purposes, it holds that a man can become one-flesh with many women at the same time. I hope that all makes sense. It seems the separation without any regard for the other person is what’s discouraged by both Moses and Jesus. Which you’ve said before that God doesn’t change His mind. (In Angela’s view, when Jesus notes Moses, he said Moses suffered to allow them to put away their wives, so because of their hardness of their hearts in doing so, Moses had to command to have an official option that would protect them from abandonment, destitution and both committing infidelity with all old and new parties involved.) So sex might still equal marriage, even in how Angela describes it. It just might mean that one needs to end things properly in order to make a new one-flesh bond, thus starting their new marriage which began at sex (supporting your view of sex equals marriage.) Anyway, as I said before, I will respond to your long comment later as soon as I can! Thanks again! 🙂

      • John R says:
        July 14, 2015 at 7:29 pm

        Hi Angela (and Moanti),

        Sorry for instantly attacking your ideas. I promise I wasn’t doing so out of disdain, because I really do think it’s interesting. You’ve effectively halted this paper I’m writing, because now I have to consider your ideas about divorce as well haha. I mentioned those stories because they seem to be apparent contradictions, but I admit that I didn’t think too hard to make your idea fit. I’ll have to do that now.

        Moanti tried to make both ideas for together, and it sounded pretty good. But I’ll have to really dig into your ideas to see where the truth lies. Ultimately, though, our marriage ideas would produce similar actions when it comes to divorce and remarriage. While you say divorce is acceptable and possible, I say it’s really impossible, but that sometimes it’s the lesser of two evils and so it may actually be necessary in this broken world. In practice, both of us would allow divorce (though in mind, perhaps more sparingly). And like Moanti said by mentioning Romans 14, this could be meat vs vegetables. We’re both trying to act in love towards the Lord, and towards the people getting married, so there’s not really much need for us to argue about it. Paul admitted that disputes over Scripture would happen!

        Now Moanti, you said that if you remarry after a divorce, then you’re not really one flesh because it’s adultery. In my view, adultery is adultery precisely BECAUSE you become one flesh to the wrong person. One flesh union, on its own, is neutral. Like our words, it can be used for good or for bad.

        One flesh unions are good when they protect genetic variety, but within an exclusive family structure. When you become one flesh with someone else’s one flesh partner, you have violated that exclusivity. This is adultery.

        In spiritual marriage, one flesh becomes one spirit, and we can commit adultery by worshipping other gods. We are supposed to be exclusive to God (while He is married to all of us… Polygyny?), but when we become one spirit to other gods, that exclusivity is broken. Even if we denounce God and “divorce” Him, it’s still adultery AGAINST God when we worship other gods.

        The short version of that is, adultery happens when two guys become one flesh to the same woman.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 14, 2015 at 8:35 pm

        Then again, if trinitarian doctrine is true (which is supported in the original King James btw), then God being 3 in 1 is also as we, being many, represent just 1 body or bride, of Christ specifically. So although the body of believers may seem polygamous, we were never essentially called as “brides” of Christ. Furthermore, if you as a human man can be called a bride by God Himself, than where does that leave us with the drastic importance on gender difference in a “one-flesh” union aside from use for a metaphor to teach us about God? Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, so in this case, husbands are compared to Christ, yet are also part of the church, so essentially they are also like the wife, and then meteorically also compared to Christ. But in both cases, Paul states, “we are no longer male and female, but one in Christ Jesus.” So aside from procreation, there is a much deeper union than simply the sex of one-flesh. And who are we to say that only male and female can become one-flesh? Yes indeed, in the beginning (at the start aka in the past), He made them male and female, and now we are no longer male and female, but one in Christ Jesus. We know that one-flesh is what God has brought together and I would not be shy to say that I believe 100% that God brought me together with my partner. Additionally, you should look at the link I sent on our biological makeup. Why did God make us capable with both an internal and external mode of sexual stimulation? He designed it. All are bodily capable for a straight or gay union (but it is our natural affection that leads us towards one or the other.) Natural design is that a man has an external (penis) AND internal (prostate gland positioned in anus) mode of stimulation and a woman has an external (clitorus) AND internal (g-spot) mode of stimulation. All things mentioned bring the body to orgasm, but note that females do not have a prostate gland obviously, so there is no internal mode of stimulation for women to “naturally” have anal sex, only men…. Interesting? But too graphic? (Sorry, but it had to be said to explain! I don’t like talking about it either! Oh, yeah you said I was an expert on sex or something, what?!?! Hahaha! I’m really REALLY not! Sexual orientation is so much more than just sex, hence my aversion to only focus on the sex part of marriage.)

        Procreation will always continue because God designed more straights than gays. But if animals in nature also show this distinction, than God created all of his creatures in both these ways and is not only good population control, but also gives “extra helpers” for unwanted children of adoption. Infertile couples are still one-flesh, yes? So why not gays and lesbians who are brought together to share one-flesh? (Keep in mind there’s more than one way to penetrate for males and/or females together.)

        But then in general, we see that at the resurection, we will no longer marry nor be given into marriage, but be as the angels of heaven, which do not marry. But interesting because all Biblical angels we see always show themselves as males! So we will be like angelic male-ish looking at the same time as a bride or what? Maybe that’s why Paul said marriage was a mystery! Haha! …I am wondering though with your theory if you are condoning that a man can still have multiple wives? Then wouldn’t this still cause the problem of serving 2 masters, loving one and hating the other, essentially? Paul says the wife has authority over her husband’s body (and vise versa), but if the husband is right in the middle of having sex with his other wife, than doesn’t this take away her authority and give it all to the man, and even at the hands of the other wife? Perhaps we should also metaphorically see the Spiritual difference of the Old Covenant and New Covenant and how they reflect upon us as believers. Before we had to go through a high priest and many were born unclean and could not enter the Temple to even attempt sacrifices. (Not to mention the “flesh” covenant of circumcision.) This is a submission in reliance with others to reach God, but the sign of the covenant was through the cutting of the flesh which could not be undone. But under the New Covenant, we are saved by the broken flesh of the One Intercessor Messiah, and now have direct access to God (with no requirement for circumcision, but are all circumcised in the heart.) I’m not sure where this is leading, but it’s a few things to think about…

  95. A says:
    July 12, 2015 at 11:55 pm

    Hey Montai I was wondering what do u think about the Supreme court decision? Also what do u think about the Christan who think we should practice sabbtah?

    Reply
  96. A says:
    July 13, 2015 at 12:01 am

    malakos I though it meant morally weak? In there anything of child rapist?

    Reply
    • Angela says:
      July 14, 2015 at 10:08 pm

      Actually in lev there is a rule started that you can’t remarry the woman you divorce if she became another man’s husband. So before the N.T this was already stated you can’t remarry a person you divorce if she already remarried .

      Reply
  97. Paul says:
    July 13, 2015 at 11:06 am

    First of all, thank you for being brave enough to post a Hebrew and Greek word study online. That being said you have opened yourself up to criticism by posting. You mentioned, “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.” This made me wonder if you have any examples of greek words made from a combination of words where both roots are plural in the newly created word. I have never seen the Greek work that way. I am pretty sure the plural ending only applies to the single new word, not the individual root word. So a super literal translation would not be “men-beds,” but “men-bedders.” Haha. Anyway, hope my question makes sense.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 15, 2015 at 9:18 pm

      Hi Paul!
      This is a very good question! Unfortunately I’m not quite an expert at Greek, and much more familiar with Hebrew. I’ve been looking into this and I’m not sure from where I might be able to derive such a list, but looking into the rules of Greek grammar, it would seem that when 2 nouns are compounded, the plural aspect is for the newly created word. So if anything, not really “menbedders” but “manbeds” or “manbedders.” If we look at koitai (beds) as a verb (but it was not ever used this way in Scripture), it could be “bedders,” but emphasis could still be on the second word rather than the first. So this would still put emphases on the beds or bedders aspect rather than the man (or male.) In other words, the man would be the one committing the “bedders” action, so this still doesn’t explain who (or what gender) the man is “bedding” with. And if we look at male as the emphasis rather than beds, then we still can’t assume the one that’s in beds with a male is also a male. If we go as far as to stretch it to bedders with males (plural), again, there’s no proof that the one who is in beds with males is a male.

      With that said, it should be noted that the singularity of arsen has been noted through time, and was in the past accepted as meaning masturbation (due to the singular nature of the male being noted as an important distinction.) But looking back much further, we can see extra-Biblical usage of this word after Paul in 77 Greek documents, but the definition is never given, yet has been used to apply to committing arsenokoites with the opposite sex. So it doesn’t seem to be able to mean specifically male-male sex all the time if a man can commit it towards a woman or vise versa.

      Additionally, it’s interesting to note that there exists a plethora of Greek documents that describe same-sex behavior, but not even one of the documents contain the word “arsenokoites,” so this raises some questions as to it’s meaning. It would seem if Paul’s word meant homosexual male sex, then we would expect for it to show up in Greek documents about homosexual male sex. Instead, they use other words to describe this act including: paiderasste (sex between males), lakkoproktoi (male penetrator), pathikos (passive penetrated male), kinaidos (effeminate penetrated male), arrenomanes (“mad after males”- could be applied to gay or straight). There were also words describing lesbians that could have been used such as dihetaristriai, hetairistriai and lesbiai (love and sexuality between women) and tribas (woman who takes on active role in female sex.)

      There are varied guessed translations of arsenokoites (all are truly guessed since Paul didn’t define the word), so this thought of “a man in many beds” is just one variant of the many. But in all fairness, even if the word is truly meaning “a man having sex with another man,” then the word “homosexuals” is an unfair translation because this broad term refers to people with same-sex attraction (both males and females), which is something that has not been validly proven to be eradicated, cured or changed. So using “homosexuals” is unfairly attacking an entire group of potential followers (sometimes to the point of suicide) which has produced some very bad fruit and has scarred the churches image as being inclusive to heterosexuals. The word “homosexual” is also being unfairly applied to females, but Paul’s word is specific in his word meaning “male,” not other Greek words which could apply to both gender. So to dually apply this to both genders is also not what was originally written. So if anything, the translators would due it justice to place it as “man/beds,” as Paul made up the word, so we don’t really have an English equivalent since he did not define it. Even though the wording is awkward, this is more honest than guessing when we don’t know for certain what it means. So although I see real historical evidence of it not applied to condemn all gay people, I can’t claim that I know the exact meaning myself and most Biblical scholars admit that they also aren’t 100% certain.

      Thanks for your comment Paul!
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      Reply
      • Paul says:
        July 15, 2015 at 10:47 pm

        That was an accident on my part. I meant to say “man-bedders.” I definitely think man-beds would be misleading, because that sounds like an inanimate object and for those who don’t know Greek at all, they might think the plural form of bed proves that it is plural in the original Greek, which it is not. Even an emphasis on bed, doesn’t mean that it is a person who goes to a bunch of different beds. Still, I understand that “man-bedders” is not that clear either, but at least it makes the two words one and allows it to describe a human. I also agree that “homosexuals” is a poor translation. I believe it definitely has to do with actions and not attraction. Homosexuality as a recognized sexual category did not even exist until a few hundred years ago, so I think that is impossible. I am not saying homosexuals, as we understand them today, did not exist back then, but that there was no term for what we consider homosexuals today. So anyway, I thank you for your time and research. Not sure if I have achieved much, but I wanted clarity on that issue. I felt that it was a bit misleading to emphasize the plural form of beds when that is not emphasized in the Greek at all. I know it was unintentional, but I want it to be clear that the combination of the words is a totally new word that is plural. That that plural word is a single descriptor of a kind of person, just like the other words in the list. I guess my argument was more about the Greek than my view of sexuality.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 16, 2015 at 3:29 am

        Hello again Paul!
        I see your point now of the nouns of a compound being a new word plural. Yet still, the 2 words that they come from are still simply that: man, beds. Bedder might also confuse people since it’s not a word we use and only shows up in the English dictionary as “1. a plant suitable for use for a bedding plant. 2. A person who makes up beds.” So “bedder” could also be misunderstood (but doubtful people would confuse this with bedding plants or making beds! Haha!) I accept that manbedders is still a widely accepted behind the scenes interpretation (I say “behind the scenes” since it doesn’t actually appear in any publicized translation aside from maybe a footnote if we’re lucky.) But this is certainly more clear than all the other translations the Bible versions have come up with, so I see your point and wish they would just say that!

        Interestingly enough, when one looks at every Bible verse that uses the second in the word pair (koites or koitai) in the Greek, it always refers to a bed (inanimate object) aside from one exception I hadn’t noticed before. The 1 verse (Romans 13:13) is the only in it’s plural form (beds) and it is translated as either sexual promiscuity, orgies or chambering. (Note that this is the only time it has direct sexual meaning and we should recognize that it’s authored by Paul who coined arsenokoites, so this should give it higher likelihood of possible connected meaning.) So at least, the plural form of beds has been translated to be like “many beds.” Secondly, when we look at the Strong definition, it says “a bed, a marriage bed, Plural form: repeated (immoral) sexual intercourse.” So this is something that is at least repeated and assumed by multiple translators as being of multiple partner origin.

        Even taken plural as a whole compound word, it seems that manbedders could connect to the above definition of it’s second word pair (promiscuous, orgies or chambering.) So “a man in many beds” still might not be too far off if we use the Bible’s own word usage to define itself. It seems to connect the male with sexual promiscuity orgies and going into more than one bed chamber, rather than just a single inanimate bed with one person.

        I appreciate your insight Paul! Thanks again for helping to clarify!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Paul says:
        July 16, 2015 at 8:22 am

        Not to keep driving the point, but you said, “Yet still, the 2 words that they come from are still simply that: man, beds.” You should have said “man, bed.” When you go to the root words you always use the singular form.
        On your point about the koitais in Rom. 13:13 is helpful. But again, the plural form of koite is nowhere to be found in 1 Cor. 6:9. It is two singular root words combined to make a single new word to which he adds a plural ending. I see your point that beds (plural) clearly has sexual connotations, but it is just not found in the 1 Cor. 6:9. Also, the fact that Paul has so many words to describe sexually immoral people and prostitutes etc. makes it interesting that he feels the need to use this new combination of words… one that seems to have been drawn from the LXX version of Lev. 18:22. I do know your Hebrew word study covered Lev. 18:22, but I am not sure if you dealt with the version that Paul was more than likely reading.
        I totally get that sexually immoral, promiscuous etc. are possible interpretations of arsenokoites, but it is not because of the plural ending. But I would lean towards the interpretation brought about through my reading of the LXX.
        On another point, I genuinely didn’t know that people have used the term man-bedders. Haha. That makes me feel a little better about my Greek skills. I am losing them more and more every day.
        One final note. I am very impressed that you have devoted so much time to all of this. It is amazing and I truly applaud you. Even to respond in such depth to each person… It is truly inspiring. I appreciate your time. You are clearly very knowledgeable and I know I can learn something from your work. Keep writing!

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm

        Paul,
        Thanks so much for clarifying, again! 🙂 I appreciate any guidance on this. If what you say is always true as a Greek grammatical rule, than there are many many people misquoting this “man,beds” (even in scholarly articles against homosexuality!) Although I have heard both,”(man, beds) or (man, bed)” but I’m sure when writing this, I had seen it as “beds” because of how in English when we see any vice list, it ends in “s” and the words in the other list of sins are not compound words of 2 nouns (like man and bed are) but rather compounds of a noun and verb which equals the adjective. So the 2 noun compound in this case is unique from others in the list.

        With your knowledge of Greek, can you clarify the difference between arsenokoitai and arsenokoites? Because I know the “ai” like the English word “alumni” seems to at least represent more than one and is represented in 1 Timothy. I still see the “whole plural as the whole thing” thing that you are saying… But just to be totally sure before I have to change my website on this to be accurate, can you verify that a Greek compound word cannot ever contain a plural word to define it’s meaning? When you had originally asked me in your first comment, I thought you were saying can I provide a list of Greek words with 2 plural root words. I am almost certain I found words with 1 plural root, at least once if not more in some Greek book of compound words having to do with biology. Unless, like me, they were quoting the root words with a plural without realizing it’s possible change of meaning. Sometimes definition would call for it for meaning, one would think. At least ones that would need it to emphasize something that always has more than one of something. But in any case, I appreciate any knowledge you have on this and if we can totally verify this to have no exception, I will change my website about this word as soon as I’m able to get to a laptop (phones make for difficult editing on old material), as I always strive to be accurate!

        Second, what a great idea to go through the LXX to see if it coincides with the Hebrew in this case (namely, each word equivalent to shakab.) Do you know what word that translates into Greek off the top of your head and how to transliterate it? Let me know if you do. 🙂 It would be the first “lie with” word in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. I would also like to undertake this study sometime, also realizing that the and Hebrew was the original and first.

        Okay, so I have one last thing. Not having to do with grammar, but historical context. I just thought it was interesting to share with you. I was able to find a copy of Philo’s work which systematically goes through the laws of Leviticus. Now this is very interesting because Philo was a very popular 1st century writer so he was living at the time of Jesus and Paul. As Philo understood it, Leviticus 18 was targeting males who had charge of pagan temples and they mainly had sex with young boys. They also seemed to dress as females and wanted to stay young and some often castrated themselves to imitate female goddesses. (Not to mention, they seemed to act horribly boastful and arrogant of their status and even pushed down people in the streets with their body guards as if they were in charge like gods or goddesses.) So it’s just interesting that a 1st century writer that lived at the same time of Paul (and Jesus) saw the Levitical passages in the context of this shrine prostitution and proclivity towards pedophilia and wanting to look as females goddesses. So however we see it today as referring to ALL homosexuals might be too broad if this is not what it was referring to. So even if Paul borrowed from the LXX, he may have also seen it in this context which was apparently very widely being practiced still in Pauls time according to Philo. If interested, here is the work and the section about this is in “VII. (37).”
        http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html
        Thanks again for everything Paul and also for being so kind! I very much appreciate it! God bless you!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Paul says:
        July 16, 2015 at 7:46 pm

        The “es” ending is just the Lexical form of the word. I used it because whenever speaking about a Greek word it was typical to use the nominative singular form. I believe the two versions that Paul uses are the “ai” and “ais” endings and both are plural. The “ai” is the nominative and the “ais” is the dative. I am not sure if this is what you were looking for. I totally agree that these are plural endings, but I believe it is saying that the new word is plural. I will have to check the rules to make sure. I don’t have a lot of my old tools with me and it would be great if I had Accordance or some kind of Biblical language software like I used to.

        But Anyway… I will get back to you with the rest of the answers when I am able to look at everything more in depth. I am currently in the middle a cross-country move and about to take on a new job, so things are kind of hectic. But I am excited to do this study with you. I think it is important.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 16, 2015 at 9:57 pm

        Paul,
        I want to sincerely thank you for explaining this to me, as I appreciate your insights! So when you are settled in and able to clarify if this is a rule or not, then please do let me know, as I want to be as accurate as possible! Thank you for taking the time to write me on this matter. I’m praying for a smooth transition in your new job and move! I very much look forward to hearing from you in the future!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Paul says:
        July 16, 2015 at 11:57 pm

        Thank you for your prayers… Okay so I am up late and couldn’t resist a little research. Haha… Honestly, I just don’t know how a one could keep a plural form of a single root word once it has been combined with another word and the two have turned into a new single word. I don’t have a grammar book quote to prove that (I will have to check Wallace’s intermediate grammar when I get settled) but I just don’t see how that would work. If you have any examples of words with plurals inside of a combination word, please share. Even if it is just one plural inside of the word. I don’t know how you could show that unless it is the first word in the combo (this would be the clearest proof). If it is the last word, then it would be unclear what was actually plural (the second root or the whole new word… but again it is not two words anymore, but one word… word endings apply to the whole new word not to a single root).
        So the transliteration of the lexical form of the word in the LXX of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (the one that the LXX interpreted from Shakab) is koimao and it just means to fall asleep or die.
        I just found an argument against my use of the LXX: http://hoperemains.webs.com/lxxseptuagintpaul.htm Thought you might enjoy it. I am not sure if I agree with them on everything, but they make an interesting point about the fact that these two words were used in more than Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. I don’t think it definitively proves anything and I am pretty sure their final argument (that the actual root word is not koite but the word for lie down) is wrong. I don’t know. Anyway, I hope this is helpful.
        I still will need more time to read the stuff on Philo. I have read a bit of his work and have really enjoyed it, so this will be fun for me. And I do think Paul is rather familiar with Philo, so this may help your case a bit.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 17, 2015 at 5:28 am

        Hi Paul!
        Please forgive the short reply. It’s actually past 5am here and like you, I just can’t resist research! Haha! So thank you for providing the shakab Greek equivalent koimao! I have been up looking through the LXX and am now at the midpoint in the book of Psalm, and the verse reads “In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.” Psalm 4:8. So this is a sign it’s time for me to go to bed! Ha! But anyway, I will let you know when I’m done with the full study. Thus far it’s proving to be nearly identical to the Hebrew, but there are some interesting things I didn’t notice before which I will have to tell you later. The sexual usage has still remained the same as the Hebrew shakab so far. I will get back to you when I’m fully done with the study! Thanks for inspiring me to do this, and again, thanks for your insights!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 18, 2015 at 5:50 pm

        Hello there Paul!
        So I finished the study of koimao and found some interesting results. I searched the LXX and so I looked at every verse in the Old and New Testament that was translated from the Hebrew shakab into the Greek equivalent, koimao. Like the Hebrew, the LXX showed that every sexual use was either a rape, coerced sex or a deceptive sexual union. (So the meaning of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 still remains in question.) I noticed that it was never sexually used in the context of 2 consensually committed people.

        But there were a few things worth mentioning that I didn’t noticed before when I did my shakab study the first time. There are themes throughout time of it’s usage and you can clearly see an author’s preference for using the word for either physically laying down, sleeping, dying or having the types of sex previously mentioned. The Torah by far uses the most sexual references for the word. The rest (in the Torah) were mainly reference to lying down, sleeping and a few times for death. In Joshua through 1 Samuel, we only see a few references of lying and dying. Then again in 2 Samuel it is heavily used in a sexual context and lastly once in Ezekiel. After that, it’s mainly only used in the Old Testament for sleeping and death and laying down. (Some authors almost exclusively use it over and over for death like in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles.) Then in the New Testament it is exclusively only used for sleeping and death.

        Here is a chart which shows the books of the Bible, their authors and the estimated time they were written. I put this in order of date to show the trends of the word usage. A book which contains a sexual usage has a “*” by it. Again, all sexual usages were in cases of rape, coerced sex and deceptive unions outside of consensual commitment.
        (Also note books that don’t contain shakab/koimao were omitted from this list.)
        OLD TESTAMENT
        *Genesis, *Exodus, *Leviticus, *Numbers, *Deuteronomy = Moses – 1400 B.C. [laying, sexual, sleeping, dying]
        Job = Moses – 1400 B.C. [laying, sleeping, dying]
        Joshua = Joshua – 1350 B.C. [laying, dying]
        Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, *2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad – 1000 – 900 B.C. [sexual, laying, dying, sleeping]
        Proverbs, Ecclesiastes = Solomon – 900 B.C. [sleeping, lying]
        Isaiah = Isaiah – 700 B.C. [sleep, laying, 1 death.]
        1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah – 600 B.C. [almost always death, a few laying]
        Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah – 600 B.C. [laying, rest, laying, dead]
        *Ezekiel = Ezekiel – 550 B.C. [laying with the dead, 1 sexual (rape)]
        Daniel = Daniel – 550 B.C. [sleep]
        1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles= Ezra – 450 B.C. [death, 1 laying]
        Psalms = several different authors, mostly David – 1000 – 400 B.C. [Laying]
        NEW TESTAMENT
        Matthew = Matthew – A.D. 55 [dead, sleeping]
        Luke = Luke – A.D. 60 [sleeping]
        1 Peter = Peter – A.D. 60 [dead]
        Acts = Luke – A.D. 65 [dead]
        1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians = Paul – A.D. 50-70 [dead]
        John = John – A.D. 90 [sleep and death confused]

        So between 1400 – 900B.C., shakab was used in a sexual way (the Torah by Moses and 2 Samuel by Samuel). Between 899 – 551B.C., no sexual reference is made using this word. In 550B.C. it is used once (by Ezekiel), but afterwards it is never used in a sexual way again. So it is mainly used sexually between 1400 – 900B.C. with the 550B.C. single exception (if scholars have dated Ezekiel correctly.) Looking at the trend, it seems to have died out as a sexual meaning after Ezekiel. At around 450-400B.C. was also it’s last Biblical usage for lying down. After that, it was always used as reference to die or sleep.

        But there is also evidence that the Disciples themselves were sometimes confused about this word meaning. In John 11:11,12, Jesus used koimao (shakab) in reference to Lazarus. The Disciples were confused and thought Jesus meant he was “only sleeping.” But we know Lazarus was actually dead, as Jesus raised him from the dead. Check it out:
        “After saying these things, he said to them, ‘Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.’ The disciples said to him, ‘Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.’ Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep.” (John 11:11-13). So as you can see, context makes all the difference with this word, as even the disciples thought this word meant sleep when Jesus meant death. Interesting, eh?

        Lastly, there were a few verses that used koimao that didn’t read in the original Hebrew text as shakab. So these changes were made and seemed to make the meaning slightly different. Here is the list of verses that used koimao that don’t contain shakab originally: Genesis 41:21, Genesis 49:9, Exodus 23:18, 34:25, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 16:4, 2 Kings 4:24, 2 Chronicles 36:8, Job 8:17, Job 22:11, Isaiah 1:21. Note that I’m doing all of this “by hand” so I don’t have any software to compare this for me. So if I missed any others that were different, then that’s why.

        So anyway, I just wanted to thank you again for inspiring me to look through this. I also have uncovered some interesting things about Leviticus, but will have to save that for another time. Again, you’re in my prayers!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        Additional notes: verses which contain shakab (always as rape) but not koimao: 1 Sam 2:22, Isaiah 13:16, Zechariah 14:2.
        Here’s what I used to look up koimao verses: http://studybible.info/search/LXX_WH/G2837
        Here’s what I cross referenced with shakab: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7901.htm
        Here’s where I got the dates/authors for the chart: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html

      • paul says:
        July 19, 2015 at 7:37 am

        Hey, Moanti… Dis yo boy, Paul,
        I can’t wait to do my own Greek study of the LXX on these verses. But for now, I want to warn you to be careful with biblehub… They are usually pretty trustworthy, but sometimes they have the wrong words in the verse. I found this out the hard way, as I used it in a paper and the prof pointed out that the word was not in the text. I stick to academicbible or my own print version. I am not sure about their work on the LXX, but definitely the NT needs to be double checked regularly. Anyway, I’m genuinely impressed with the work you are doing. Very thorough.
        Blessings,
        Paul

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 20, 2015 at 1:26 am

        Hey there Paul!
        Thanks for your suggestion about Biblehub! Luckily I also have a few print versions, so I will have to double check! (Sometimes it’s just easier to use the electronic search tools.) I have also found a couple mistakes before at Biblehub, one being that the individual interlinear version of Leviticus 20:13 is written differently than the one that shows the whole chapter, and has more similar wording to Leviticus 18:22. I wasn’t sure if this was a complete mistake or possibly just another known translation of the verse, but now it seems it’s a mistake. That stinks that you had written a paper and it contained the wrong word! Yikes! Anyway, I appreciate all of your suggestions and insights and they are always really helpful! I look forward to when you’re able to do your own study too! 🙂 You remain in my prayers!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

  98. Angela says:
    July 14, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    I mean conbince aren’t Marrie the bible there were rule against them marrying their masters . They weren’t actually wives more of servants . They weren’t in the same status as a wife at all. Also monogamy seems to be what God wants for Hesus state each to his our wife not wives. Notice how he normally used singular in describing marriage. I mean there are marriage contracts

    Reply
    • John R says:
      July 15, 2015 at 10:12 am

      Hi Angela,

      I have to respectfully disagree with you that slaves couldn’t marry their masters. In Judges 19 we see a concubine’s master referred to as her husband, and her father as his father-in-law. The father-in-law even considered him as a son-in-law! Now, I don’t know where you found a prohibition, but I found a passage that seems to expressly condone it.

      http://bible.com/59/exo.21.7-11.ESV “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

      That last section is tricky to interpret, and many take it to mean this instead:

      “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy.”

      But either way, we see that a master can indeed marry his slave woman, and that she is to be taken care of just like any other free wife, with the exception that slave wives’ children could not ordinarily inherit the husband’s property, and they didn’t have the right to divorce their husbands because they were not free.

      Now in the first two stipulations, it doesn’t seem like they’re talking about marrying the slave woman because the verb used is “designate.” The man could either designate the slave for himself, or for his son. But the interesting thing is this: if the man designates the slave for his son, he has to treat her like a daughter. Why would a slave be treated like a daughter, unless we consider that the son would, in some way, marry her, thus making the slave the father’s daughter-in-law, just like Judges 19?

      And furthermore, why aren’t there any rules for giving the slave to his daughters? We see that this happened occasionally, like in Gen 29-30 with Rachel and Leah. Now interestingly, Gen 30:3-4 has a curious expression that the English translations don’t do justice to. We see that Leah and Rachel both give their servants to Jacob “as wives,” but the literal translation is “gave her to him to woman.” What does “to woman” mean? We might assume that this means to wive, or to make his wife, but any time Scripture talks about making someone a wife, it always says something like “make her his woman of him.” There’s always a “of him” attached, a possessive pronoun. Here however, when talking about a servant/slave, it just says “to woman.” Woman is a noun, but it seems to imply an action.

      We see this phrase again in Deuteronomy 21 talking about taking a prisoner of war sexually, it is commonly translated as make her his wife, but it literally just says “take her to him to woman.”

      http://bible.com/111/deu.21.10-14.niv When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, YOU MAY TAKE HER AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her AND BE HER HUSBAND AND SHE SHALL BE YOUR WIFE. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

      I’ve capitalized those two sections to point out that the original language doesn’t actually say “man of her” husband and “woman of him” wife, like every other passage dealing with free women marrying. The first passage reads as this:

      “And you-are-attached-in-her (attracted to her) and-you-take to-you to-woman (and you desire to take her to you to woman).”

      Here is that curious phrase again, to woman. The second passage reads:

      “So you-shall-come (in)to-her, and you-shall-possess-her and-she-becomes to-you to-woman.”

      Nowhere in this is the usual phrase “man of her” and “woman of him.”

      Reading all this, I would suggest that this passage seems to imply that these women, prisoners of war, were treated like slaves, and so if a man wanted to have sex with her, he had to wait a month for mourning, and then he could have sex with her. No ceremony, no vow required. She was his slave, so a vow of mutual ownership would be counterintuitive.

      Now I say that I think they were married in a sense because if the man dismissed her after having sex with him, she was dishonored, or made lower in some way. This is the same phrase we see when a man divorces a woman here:

      http://bible.com/111/deu.24.1-4.niv If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord . Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

      Here it says the woman is defiled, but only to the man she was first married to. I think the implication is that the Hebrews didn’t like sloppy seconds (sorry to be crude!). So when it says things like defiled or dishonored, really it is just saying that you’ve deflowered the woman and now she is not as socially able to marry. These kind of women had so many laws written about them because the Hebrews wanted to PROTECT these defiled women. Even slave wives. Honestly, I’d say even though slavery isn’t the best thing in the world, at least the Hebrews had ample laws protecting their rights.

      So in my opinion, when the Bible says “give to you to woman,” it is always talking about slave marriage, and “to woman” means to have sex with the slave wife, or concubine, in essence.

      As an aside, the fact that a man couldn’t remarry his ex-wife if she had taken another husband and divorced him (the above verse), seems to imply that the Hebrews thought some part of the marriage lasts even beyond divorce. If the marriage was completely annulled, as if it never happened, then there could be no such prohibition. I think this shows that the Hebrews thought you were still one flesh even after divorce. I’ll need to do more research on that one though.

      Now switching tracks, Angela, I see now how your interpretation of divorce actually works with the Bible’s exact wording, because even the Pharisees make a difference between the divorce papers and putting away. Very interesting concept! However, I would just say that even if your interpretation is correct, Jesus uses a different term for separating that the Pharisees do.

      http://bible.com/111/mat.19.6.niv So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

      The word separate is translated not from apolusai, but from chOrizetO, which literally means to put space between. Separate is a really good translation of the word.

      I would say that even if divorce really does end a marriage, then Jesus is still suggesting that it is not God’s desire that married couples chOrizetO, separate. Whether with divorce papers or without. And furthermore, it appears that in the OT, one could get rid of a slave wife without divorce papers. So your theory would only apply to free women, in my opinion. Which would be everyone today, just about, so that doesn’t discount your interpretation!

      Reply
      • A says:
        July 15, 2015 at 9:28 pm

        This is why I said that the slave women were under s different status. Hey if you don’t mind me asking. How do u feel about monogamy

      • John R says:
        July 15, 2015 at 11:12 pm

        A,

        Ah, I see now. Sorry for confusing your words again. Still, I think that if slave marriage didn’t require a vow, then that means marriage as a whole doesn’t REQUIRE it. It’s just a good thing to do for free people.

        I am not offended that you ask about my stand on monogamy. Considering my radical views and refusal to condemn concubines or polygamy, I’m not surprised you wonder where I stand on that personally!

        I think that there’s no reason to think that monogamy isn’t God’s ideal. Personally, I don’t desire polygamy. I live in America. First of all, it’s illegal! Second of all, paying for one wife is hard enough, let alone two and then children haha! Plus, my current wife would not much appreciate me taking in another woman into the household ;). However, I do think that for certain cultures, polygamy can actually be the better option.

        Pretty universally, polygamy is the natural state of marriage in undeveloped countries. Only 40% of male DNA has been transmitted through time, while 80% of women’s DNA had been transmitted. Why? Well it’s simple. Economics. See, the thing is, if your economy is largely based on farming, then more children means more helping hands on the farm, and so children are actually economically beneficial. The more wives you have, the more children you have, and the more wealth you have means you can support more wives, and get more children, etc.

        But in more urbanized societies, children become a financial burden, rather than a financial boost. And so monogamy is more economically beneficial, as well as using contraceptive for child control. The more children you have, the poorer you are.

        Now that being said, if all of the wives are working too, then polygamy becomes viable for a developed country as well, and in fact the income would exceed a monogamous household in most cases. This is why I expect to see the ban on polygamy lifted before I die. If we legalize gay marriage, then there’s little reason left to prevent consenting adults from engaging in polygamy, especially if their religion requires or promotes it, like Mormonism.

        Anyway, you probably want to know if I think monogamy is Jesus’ ideal. Yes and no. I think that Jesus prefers monogamy, but that’s less because monogamy is so much better and more because it gives each couple more time to spend on spiritual matters. In fact, Paul would say celibacy is even better than monogamy! Likewise, monogamy is better than polygamy, because a man who has 3 wives is gonna spend so much time having sex that he won’t have the time or energy to pray! Haha

        On the other hand, polygamy would probably cut back on that obesity issue… Hmmm lol.

      • A says:
        July 15, 2015 at 9:42 pm

        Deut 24: 1-4. clearly shows that the woman was able to remarry once she got the divorce paper

        When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

        So there was a divorce law. If the Hebrews believed in divorce is still married in fact he states if the woman was defiled she couldn’t go back to her first husband.

  100. Gary says:
    July 15, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    Moanti,

    I don’t know if you subscribe to Christianity Today, but I got an email from them advertising a new hardcover book that has just come out:

    What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung

    Here’s an excerpt:

    Click to access bible-teach-excerpt.pdf

    You once asked me what kind of book should you write. I think a good idea would be a book of this format with your opinions and research. Kind of like a counterpoint to this book.

    Gary

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 15, 2015 at 9:22 pm

      Thank you very much for sharing this with me Gary! Also thanks for the suggestion on a possible book topic! I will check this out as soon as I’m able to read it. Thanks again!

      Reply
      • A says:
        July 15, 2015 at 9:36 pm

        Malakos means morally weak right?

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 15, 2015 at 9:46 pm

        Hi A,
        I only have a moment and will have to answer more later, but malakos was translated as “morally weak” or “weaklings” in the oldest of Bibles, so this is how it was first understood at that time. But it’s also been questioned to be connected to those who have sex with children, since it means “soft” so could be referring to the pre-pubescent. But it’s had so many varied translations through the centuries. I found a chart of a list recently, but can’t find it at the moment and I’m about to run out the door. If I can find it later, I will send it to you.

  101. Lana says:
    July 21, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Hello I find your site entry with a google search “Romans lesbian” when I research the subject for God point of view, forgive me to ask but please can you give me a single, unambiguous, clear and Biblical example of God-blessed homosexual relationship? Thank you for your help, information!!

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 21, 2015 at 10:41 pm

      Hi there Lana!
      Thanks for your comment and question! You are welcome to ask me anything you want so no need to be forgiven! Tehe! 🙂 So you asked if I can give you “a single, unambiguous, clear and Biblical example of a God-blessed homosexual relationship.” I think this answer depends on what one would consider “unambiguous.” For some, the covenant between David and Jonathan might seem to be unambiguously showing a God-blessed homosexual union. But for others, this might appear as a friendship when any possibility of homosexual union is mentally disregarded as impossible. Read these verses and tell me what you think. Better yet, in your own mind, if you were to read these verses and replace “Jonathan” with “Joanne” (and the relevant pronouns), would you think such represented a romantic union or a friendship?

      “As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (1 Samuel 18:1)
      “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 18:3,4)
      “But Saul’s son Jonathan was very fond of David and delighted in him exceedingly..” (1 Samuel 19:1)
      “And Jonathan made David swear an oath again by his love for him, because he loved him as his own soul.” (I Samuel 20:17.)
      “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse (referring to David) to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” I Samuel 20:30. [For context, Saul did not approve of his son’s closeness to David and saw him as a threat, so after expressing his disapproval, he threatened to murder David (again), so Jonathan had to see him in secret.]
      “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 forever.’” (I Samuel 20:41-42)
      “Very pleasant have you (Jonathan) been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (II Samuel 1:26.) [ Side note: the phrase “very pleasant” and word “women” are more accurately translated in the Hebrew as “exceedingly pleasing” and “wives.”
      So for some, this might be a very obvious Biblical same-sex union that was blessed by God and only condemned by Saul because he saw David as a threat. What do you think?

      But if this is not a same-sex union, than I would still have to say that I can’t come up with a single, unambiguous, clear and Biblical example of a relationship between a husband or wife who’s married to a hermaphrodite (a person born with both working sexual organs), but we know they exist. The Bible is most certainly vocal about heterosexual unions, but this makes sense in that heterosexuals represent the vast majority and are obviously blessed with procreativity (unless infertile.) But as I’ve said before on here, I think the deeper message is not as much what was commanded to Adam and then Noah to be fruitful and multiply (because we know people aren’t going to just stop having children), but for everyone to be Spiritually fruitful and multiply believers. I would say that the Bible is a message to all humanity, and not all fit in the traditional box. So it would seem that for those who don’t have a natural attraction to the opposite gender but haven’t been called to celibacy, duality should be able to be applied so that one can at best follow the blueprint for Biblical marriage which has less to do with gender than it does the fact that it is a God-centered monogamous life-long covenant between 2 believers. We know that Jesus said that in the New Creation (after the resurrection), no one will marry or be given into marriage. So rather than focus on the first creation, we should remember that “we are no longer male and female, but one in Christ Jesus.”

      But this should be strongly cautioned with a prayerful examination of ones personal conviction and prayers for discernment as well as an in-depth study into these passages. I believe that some gays are called to celibacy, others to mixed orientation marriages, and lastly, those who feel they have liberty to join with another believer in a God-centered monogamous life-long covenant. Each union (or lack their of) can come with both its own set of challenges and blessings. But all can be used by God to show His great love, mercy and grace.

      If you don’t mind me asking, what brought you to look up “Romans lesbian?” I really look forward to hearing from you! Thank you again for your comment and question and I hope this helped. May God bless you abundantly and continue to grow in the knowledge of His Word!
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      Reply
      • Lana says:
        July 22, 2015 at 3:23 am

        Hello, thank you for your information and also very fast to tell me, but i am not believing the man david and the man jonathan are in couple? But friends, yes I agree. I research the subject “Romans lesbian” because i am curious to know, opinions with homosexuality in the world vary and change so much, many say different things…. This “Romans” in the New Bible say what is valid for Christians or not, I try to know what it is God-blessed for me just in case, a friend of me also a woman, seem to like me and it is embarassing…. Thank you, I believe in God forgive the relationship couple gays and lesbians but not accept…. Tolerate yes, maybe some time maybe sure too long time, but not god-blessed.and want them stop to sleep and kiss together in the end…. Sorry I say my opinion?

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 23, 2015 at 2:43 pm

        Hello again Lana;
        Thanks for your comment. I admire you for looking into the different views. Your opinion is closer to that of the majority. But I’d rather call it a personal conviction than opinion even. I feel that most heterosexual Christians are personally convicted against it because they themselves wouldn’t engage in a same-sex relationship since they don’t have any natural attraction towards the same-gender, so it’s very easy to accept the traditional view without much thought. But when you have romantic attraction towards the same gender rather than the opposite, one is forced to confront the situation and where they stand with God. As I’m sure most humans would admit that finding a love to spend the rest of their life with is one of our top human priorities aside from sustaining our bodies with food and water, having a way of income to do so, and of course for some of us humans, fulfilling our spiritual needs. I know many gay and lesbian Christians and some feel called to celibacy, but others feel the same longing most heterosexuals do to find a life-long partner and those that have usually come to peace that God has blessed their union. It just depends.

        I also admire you for at least feeling that God is forgiving and might not bless, but a least tolerate same-sex unions. I’ve come across many Christians that believe that God cannot and will not forgive this as a sin, and this is very sad and makes them feel that they discount their genuine walk with God. At the worst, they can’t live with the inescapable feelings and judgment and end up killing themselves. So your view is more loving and much appreciated!!! 🙂 I also feel God’s grace is sufficient, as His power is truly made perfect in our weaknesses. I believe He can use this struggle to show His mercy and bring about great good from it, as all things work together for good for those who truly love God. So this is why we can rejoice through our struggles, hardships and persecutions, knowing that His love and grace will sustain us when we persevere in our faith to the end knowing that our hope lies completely in the promise of His Salvation that cannot be broken by the judgments of man. I personally feel blessed by God with my own partner, as our walk with Him has grown much stronger together compared to alone and I’ve seen the same good fruit come from other Christian same-gender unions. So when 2 Christians join together, I believe God can do a lot of good even in a same-gender union.

        But as far as Romans, the passage never specifies women with women, only that “even their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural.” The whole Chapter talks about those Romans that knew God, but exchanged Him for worship of all sorts of idols (which does not describe current Christians no matter what orientation.) In that culture (as well as the culture of Levitical times), idol worshipers would perform sexual rituals with the shrine prostitutes in order to sacrifice their seed as they were intercessors to these idol gods. This was always in a non-procreative way if you know what I mean (read above.) This included men with men, and men with women, but there is no historical evidence that this included women with women because it was the seed of the man that was the sacrifice (which 2 women can not produce!) Also we must note that the Levitical law only mentions males, and one would think if this were against all homosexual unions, then females together would be mentioned. Especially since the verses following condemn bestiality between men with animals and then goes on to also prohibit women with animals. So it’s strange that women were not also mentioned in this verse. Duality was not assumed in the code, as it’s very gender specific when it needs to be and general when it applies to all. So this is why it seems possible that it was referring to the prohibitions against shrine prostitution and not a prohibition against all homosexuals. Additionally, all the laws that attribute the death penalty in Leviticus are repeated again in Deuteronomy as it was Moses’ last book that summed up everything. But the passage of Leviticus 18:22/20:13 is the ONLY death penalty law not mentioned again, yet in it’s place in Deuteronomy instead is a law against shrine prostitutes (which was not mentioned in Leviticus in any separate passage.)

        One might think, why would there be laws for Jews against things pertaining to idol worship (other than not to commit idolatry), yet the passage before in Leviticus 18:21 commands them not to sacrifice their seed to the idol Molech and Leviticus chapter 20 goes on at length against doing the specific worship ceremonies to Molech. There is much evidence to this view not mentioned here, but just some things to think about but more so pray about.

        Lastly concerning this is that one of the most widely known first century writers named Philo (who lived at the time of Jesus and Paul) wrote detailed expositions about the Torah, and in his work concerning Leviticus, he clearly interprets Leviticus 18:22/20:13 as pertaining to the male shrine prostitutes who were the intercessors of the idol temples and also happened to be known for keeping young boys as sex slaves! So this shrine/temple prostitution interpretation is not only NOT a new liberal theology conjured up by gays seeking justification for their sin, but is the oldest known interpretation of these laws! So any homophobic view against all homosexuals is a newer view compared to the early view. (As a side note, Philo also mentions the shrine prostitutes being around in his day, again, during the time of Jesus and Paul. So when Paul wrote Romans, he seems to be referring to these same acts that were known and practiced openly in the 1st century world.)

        So one last thing in general. I have noticed that when asked, many heterosexual Christians will admit that they kind of don’t fully understand why God would condemn committed love between the same gender, but feel it’s not their place to question what they read in the Bible as fact. So although they might have great compassion towards gays and these seemingly clear prohibitions, they suppress their compassion in place of what they see written and just say “I don’t really understand why, but God said so.” I feel that this is very significant because all compassion comes from God. So when a Christian has this compassion but suppresses it, that should tell us something. This ingrained compassion should tell us that God might be trying to tell us something. One must pray for the wisdom and discernment to separate what constitutes as human interpretation (which can vary) and what God has placed upon your heart as the truth of His loving Word. Also one must pray for discernment between what constitutes as a personal “yuck factor” (coming from your own natural attraction towards ONLY the opposite gender) and what is permissible for those who have an opposite natural attraction towards the same gender.

        I’m sorry your friend embarrasses you, but I can totally understand how that could be embarrassing for you! Just show her the love of Christ and if you don’t feel that way back towards her, I’m sure she would understand and not judge you for it! 🙂 If anyone can understand not having the ability to have attraction towards a certain gender, it’s us (as gays and lesbians)! So there should certainly be no pressure to go against your natural affections, because for you, it would be unnatural, just as it goes against natural affections for gays and feels unnatural to be with the opposite sex. It’s really not all that mysterious. However you feel as a heterosexual towards the opposite sex is how we feel as a homosexual towards the same sex, and having to go against these ingrained affections feels just as unnatural for both orientations. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have any time! I feel it’s very important to shed light on this topic and I thank you again for taking an interest in these studies!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Lana says:
        July 23, 2015 at 4:08 pm

        Hello thank you so much, yes i am young but i read a lot of the Bible book, personal conviction is the faith Christian give, but all we believe with conviction are not good just because for believing, the good conviction it come from what God say inside and lesson of Jesus teaching, I read this from Disciple Paul?, And inside, the homosexuality is always punished negative…. I can not find the Prostitution and Idol Temple in Levite? Romans Paul writing I see the lesbians and the gays sexuality butbnot in the temple too. And you say you can not have a single example of the homosexual couple God-blessed, so sorry. God is not happy with this. Sorry! But thank you for your information, but not biblical from God Bible…. Because not in the bible, you are wrong, but God love you. but Christian man and woman must stop to do what God say is wrong before the end of life…. ok God-blessed!

      • Lana says:
        July 24, 2015 at 12:45 am

        Hello sorry i give you example me too, whatever the reason Stealing is wrong it is the same problem, compassion for the poor child steal the man wallet in the market place, his money for survive but still stealing is wrong… Yes or no? Same, homosexuality is stealing the sexuality from the man and woman couple God-blessed and is always wrong whatever the reason. If they are Christian, or if not, this is not God business they are already judged the sin they do is the punishment due for replace the other sex with same sex partner, Paul said from Spirit…. I am really sorry I say what is written only. From the Bible God. The truth. for Christian man AND woman. Others, persons not beleive God is saving for good Paul say; Christians must let go. Do not judge outsiders from the God-blessed. Their choice, ok. They can, but they suffer too, they deserve it .Very good. And fair. Yes sin must be punished it is normal and fair because God is giving justice too. Good bye. God-blessed!

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 24, 2015 at 4:46 am

        Hi Lana,
        I appreciate your comments and I’m sure they will be a blessing to those who share your convictions! 🙂 I’m not trying to convince you that my view is right and yours is wrong. Neither am I trying to debate you on this matter. Rather, I would like to explain a bit more as to how we get the idea of Leviticus and Romans talking about shrine prostitutes just to explain to you that this alternate perspective is derived from the Scriptures themselves. So how one proceeds with this information is based on personal conviction.

        I understand that it might be difficult to see this when we look at the Bible in it’s common translation. The context of Leviticus is harder to see because we tend to look at each law individually. But context shows that Leviticus chapter 18 lumps the males lying with males in the verses about actions that were only culturally performed in idol worship to Moleck. Then goes on to say that these were the detestable practices that were done in the land before the Israelites got there and not to do them. 1 Kings 14:24 refers to these same people from Leviticus:
        “There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in these detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.”
        As a reminder, here’s the verse following the Leviticus male lying with male law: “for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled.” (Leviticus 18:27.) Do you see the connection? This is talking about the same land, those who lived on Israel’s land before them, which had male shrine prostitutes which were males that lied with males… They were not a bunch of gays, but idolaters that happened to engage in these male/male idol worship sex acts (ironically usually thinking it would make them more fertile with women) and God did not want them resembling what they had done, as they were to be set apart from the pagan lands. So this is not a prohibition against all gays and lesbians for all time, but a prohibition against the harming act of idol prostitution.

        If we think of Leviticus as the descriptive definition of a male prostitute without a title given (as a “male lying with male”), then when Deuteronomy repeats all the laws, it simply gives the title and not the definition in the second part of the verse: “none of the sons of Israel shall be a shrine prostitute.” Deuteronomy 23:17. So it doesn’t say “you shall not be a male shrine prostitute” in Leviticus, but rather describes the action of a “male lying with a male” after mentioning a prohibition not to “sacrifice their seed (Hebrew word zera=semen) to the idol Molech.” Do you see the connections here? This may seem to be a very silly comparison, but it is likened to this same concept. Take these 2 sentences:
        1) “you shall not rest your body upon a wooden object with four legs.”
        2) “don’t sit in a chair.”
        Now as you can see, both of these sentences mention the same action. Number 1 gives a description of the object with no name, and number 2 gives the object a name with no description. But we know that both are referring to the same thing. Do you see what I mean? Leviticus is like number 1, as it gives it’s description without a title, and the corresponding Deuteronomy verse is like number 2 that gives the title without the description.

        Other mentions of these shrine prostitutes are commonly just translated in Bible versions as “sodomites.” Anyone reading that would think it means a gay male! But this is not any male who has sex with men, but specifically a male shrine prostitute. See the difference that translation makes. Here is the same verse from 3 different Bible versions (note that most Bible versions do now say cultic, temple or shrine prostitutes) :
        Translation 1
        “And he broke down the houses of the sodomites (קָדֵשׁ qadesh) that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.” 2 Kings 23:7 (This looks like it’s talking about breaking down houses of gays!)
        Translation 2
        “He destroyed also the pavilions of the effeminate (קָדֵשׁ qadesh), which were in the house of the Lord, for which the women wove as it were little dwellings for the grove.” 2 Kings 23:7 (Likewise, with people stereotypically seeing gays as effeminate, this looks like it’s talking about homosexuals.)
        Translation 3
        “He tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes (קָדֵשׁ qadesh) in the LORD’s temple, where women were weaving shrines for the Asherah idol pole.” 2 Kings 23:7 (Now here we see that the proper translation of qadesh IS male prostitute connected to idol worship. So sodomite and shrine prostitute are one in the same and here is the Strongs definition to prove it:

        qadesh: a temple prostitute
        Original Word: קָדֵשׁ
        Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
        Transliteration: qadesh
        Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-dashe’)
        Short Definition: prostitute
        NAS Exhaustive Concordance
        Word Origin
        from the same as qodesh
        Definition
        a temple prostitute
        NASB Translation
        cult prostitute (2), cult prostitutes (2), male cult prostitutes (2), sodomites (1), temple prostitute (3), temple prostitutes (1).
        http://biblehub.com/hebrew/6945.htm

        So hopefully that made sense….

        Thanks for reading this and sorry it’s so long, but I just wanted to show you how I get my information and make things a bit clearer. So instead of just reading Romans 1:26,27 by itself as most do, read Romans 1 as a whole and the idolatry aspect becomes clear. Paul is talking about particular people engaged in these acts, not just talking about idol worshipers and then going into some other separate random gay topic.

        Let me show you how I (and others) see this passage by showing it in context and making context reminder notes in parentheses. Again, like the chair example of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy comparison, Romans is more like the description of acts rather than giving it a title (more similar to Leviticus.)

        I’ll skip the greeting of Paul to the Romans for sake of space, but note that he was clearly speaking to the Romans.
        Romans 1:18-31
        “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
        (Pause…. Here we see that these people KNEW God, but EXCHANGED the worship of God for IMAGES, i.e. IDOLS. Now let’s continue reading while always keeping in mind who this is talking about and read it in it’s Biblical and cultural context of what we know about the widespread practice of idol prostitution between women with men and men with men.)
        Therefore (because of this exchange) God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Again, they exchanged worship of God for worship of idols, and because of this, they did dishonorable acts between themselves which IS the sexual acts described in idol worship sex between worshipers of idols and the shrine prostitutes.)
        For this reason (because they worshiped idols) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their (female shrine prostitute) women exchanged natural relations (marital sex) for those that are contrary to nature (un-marital anal sex); and the (idol worshiping) men likewise gave up natural relations (marital sex) with women (by having anal sex with female shrine prostitutes) AND were consumed with passion for one another (also having anal sex with male shrine prostitutes), (idol worshiping) men committing shameless acts with (shrine prostitute) men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
        And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God (because they had chosen idols), God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”

        If we look at the passage without the context, then it completely ignores who Paul is talking about which are the idol worshipers. Idol worshipers performed these sex acts with the shrine prostitutes. This is a fact according to the Bible as well as early historical writings and art. So it’s HIGHLY likely that these were the acts that Paul was referring to.

        Even though I might not be able to come up with a clear example of a positive same-gender relationship in the Bible (since you don’t see David and Jonathan as clear as some do), we most definitely cannot come up with a clear example of the Bible condemning any same-gender monogamous life-long relationship. All of the verses that condemn acts associated with homosexual acts are condemning that which causes harm such as rape, prostitution, promiscuity, idolatry, etc. None condemn a committed monogamous life-long union. So this should say something too… But it can be a slippery slope if we accept or condemn something on the sole basis of what the Bible DOESNT say. So one should proceed with prayerful caution. We must let the Bible define itself in regards to original words. It’s this lack of study by most into these things that make the reading of certain passages skewed by modern eyes.

        As far as Paul and Godly conviction, read the whole of Romans chapter 14 and see that individual believers CAN have differing convictions, but God accepts them both when it is done in thanks to God. Take into consideration that Paul states in Romans 14:14 “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.” He also goes onto to say that the big problem with the differing conviction between Christians is for us as believers to put a stumbling block OR a hinderance to our brother and sister in Christ who is convicted differently than we are. We all have the same Master, and all stand or fall on our own, but it is He who upholds us. So we are not to be the judge of another who serves the same Master in regards to disputable matters of differing convictions. Also in regards to Romans 14, cross reference this with Acts 10:9-28 and see how foods are directly compared to types of people, and that we should not consider either unclean when God has made them Holy. Rather than paste Romans 14 ( which you can read on your own), I’d like to share with you a commentary from Biblehub about this verse:
        Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
        “Differences of opinion prevailed even among the immediate followers of Christ and their disciples. Nor did St. Paul attempt to end them. Compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to outward observances without being convinced, would be hypocritical and of no avail. Attempts for producing absolute oneness of mind among Christians would be useless. Let not Christian fellowship be disturbed with strifes of words. It will be good for us to ask ourselves, when tempted to disdain and blame our brethren; Has not God owned them? and if he has, dare I disown them? Let not the Christian who uses his liberty, despise his weak brother as ignorant and superstitious. Let not the scrupulous believer find fault with his brother, for God accepted him, without regarding the distinctions… We usurp the place of God, when we take upon us thus to judge the thoughts and intentions of others, which are out of our view. The case as to the observance of days was much the same. Those who knew that all these things were done away by Christ’s coming, took no notice of the festivals of the Jews. But it is not enough that our consciences consent to what we do; it is necessary that it be certified from the word of God. Take heed of acting against a doubting conscience. We are all apt to make our own views the standard of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters of no moment. A thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver of all our mercies, sanctifies and sweetens them.”

        Thank you again for your words and also I am not trying to get you to change your mind, but rather explain the perspective so you can see that there is more than one way to look at this matter and it’s not simply coming out of thin air. Anything else about this can be found in my article above and the corresponding links. I will pray that you are able to impact your friend in a positive way for Christ! Thank you again!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Lana says:
        July 24, 2015 at 7:26 am

        Hello, thank you not argument to convince me. to be lesbian or approve to you Moanti? but i can tell you why you are wrong with the bible God, sorry i not say to blame you please, do not hate me…. You not hate me. Temple is the body Paul reveal from Spirit. The sexual sin is you and me sin against our body, the body is for the Lord bible say… Not for,immorality. Including, this outside the man and woman couple God-blessed, you know it is written…. by who? I forget. Disciple Paul too? The body is the man and woman together same in the Paradise of the Genesis, they were together one body, you know? male and female,together before God put the sleep on Adam and take Eve from the rib… but then, god say, join together and one flesh, this happen in the Marriage if they want…. this is what god-blessed. What man and woman make wrong use, they prostitute their body. To the animal, very wrong, or the clsoe family …. But I not find father and daugther in the Bible, but still wrong!!!! Creature human of same gender can not make baby together, then why it is, not for the Creator God they do this? Not for God but for the creature same gender…. I not say must always make baby and only for baby, but god bless for baby and for the couple man and woman…. Different family, ok. Not uncle, and that. I mean the body temple, and the bad, sin against the body, prositturtte their body to other, or do this to other human person of same gender…. This is, correct if you think. But i read the context sorry, only…. The book. say Levite it is not telling “Prostitute” or “Temple Shrine”, only do not go to moloch burn the children about temple thing…. I don’t know who is moloch and who burn the kids!! Crazy why this inside sexual sex sin? Sorry my english, i am poor. and write the same time i am thinking about it… But the animal sex, after man do not lie down in the bed samùe with woman, but with another man this do not say temple,sure; The same homosex not say the animal sex, then, why you can conclude outside temple OK for both?? Sorry, it is not correct…. Do not hate me . But it is true, Why one and not the otehr, it is not fair. And God is always the fair. They are not in temple or both in temple, you agree? Why one only, sin, privilege? God not like the favor, even the Son Jesus die, because God not give the favor….and you know, god give the Beautiful sun not for the Christians only but also to the other, religion and country, Muslims or Hindus, or Chinese… Or in the Alaska, but no sun, yes.. Sorry. The planet is like that. Yes, god give the same to all, but not many person realiize they are lucky…. God compassion give to youa dn me and the other one;, until death but after death this is the end, God say, and Jesus with the Tower falling, warning they were not more guilty? but also you and me, will persih Jesus say if we do not repent, it say, turn away, leave, behind, not watch abck, same the woman of the Lot chanegd in salt!!! Do you beleive this ? Live…. Nobody,; do not know when we die…. so we must be ready to die when it happen, all the time!! Romans it is not idolatry sexual temple; homosexuality in the temple…. Shrine. Or Prostitute, again, where…… Sorry the text it do not say that. Paul say the first wrong is exchange is the truth of God for the lie of no god, or false god…. The second exchange consequence of the first exchange and it may be expressing in the idol cult oif the images?. statues… totems? Liek shaman, and magic… of the animals, and also the human because God is not human, very different… Spirit no have body!! This is why God say, love the other person, different sex oppsotie, gender from you and me, not similar to you and me, for create life,and honor the sexual difference God give…. it is also the only reality that exist, sorry i say… but it is true. Next the third, exchange, this is when Paul talk about other consequences some do the homosexual sex, it is not in the temple but in the life….. Disciple Paul say the man abandon behind, leave the woman, finish. not come back if they not feel bad to leave the woman, God leave them.to the men they chsoe to prefere to the women…. Their chocie , their problem. but they can not say they are children of God, because they do against the will of God, clearly… Jesus say some are chidlren of the devil if we obey the devil… Adoption to be in the family of God children of God only for Christian, sorry, i say, bible teach me. brother and sister of Jesus, do you like? If you like you pray for God forgive and give you the Spirit to follow in the footsepts… Of Jesus!!! The homosexual sex Paul say, …. Maybe some not in the gay pride, other maybe married with woman and kdis, but hide… They also, know. yes it is not the same, only one and for sex fun or think to be giving; love… but god say lvoe is to give yourself to another, this not love to sodomize with the other man, or eat the other woman, you know; sex, lesbian… Paul Disciple, from Jesus say, it is lust, not love…. Lust meaning, wanting for yourself or myself, too, something, or someone, not belong, who is not meant for you or me.. this is clear god not make man for man and man not belong to other man, but to woman, if they marry, Maybe not, if they do not encounter the good girl? Or no money….. Sorry i say, very crude, i am shy. embarassing!!! Very sorry but they are also responsible. They know, god exist and is angry with this, not happy…. Paul say, because we all know normally, we come from the mother and father make love, God-blessed and we are alve and breathing now!! but they do not honor that their aprents and God give all; and they want, to do, as they feel or think, better than God make us sorry…. I say, from what is written. God speak against this, but it is your life i do not interfere. I know meddling i, foregin busienss is sinner too. I pray for all come to the Christian for God adopt new chidlren. and stop to do wrong, for live eternally. Do you know ? Life is short and you and me will maybe die without warning. My friend lose her baby girl, 8 months pregnan!!! I give her money for the funeral cemetary do you imagine? You have the baby grow inside of you 8 month and accident? The baby heart have stop, my God; not know… Why ? I don’t know?…. But I know god not do this. Why baby die before she is born and my friend is almost dying with the baby….. Can not comfort the lost baby, poor mom… She have a son but almsot born, you know…… it is the bad luck nothing more, the Doctor not see this…. okay i am sorry i speak poor english but you can forgive me…….? Please? You know i do not care if you like girl in your home, and not in the public park (this, is not ok more… But you can, i do not watch…… but God know all we do!!) but Christian example should, not engage life long in this, because Bible never approve, sorry it is clear, nothing positive, only negative say, about, homosexuality, but you can find the way,with Jesus help you god forgive , and give Spirit to obey the difficult Testament of Ancient. You can forget the food and Sabbath, but still must not steal, not murderous, and also…. Must not adultery, this is all the sexuality outside the god-blessed marriage one man and woman couple, including, the homosex, and animal sex, and the clsoe family, By the way, do you know…. Tell me? Why it is not written, the father sex with daugther, Levites do not say, it is not possible.. not ap^proval from God… But it is still wrong and disgusting, do you imagine the poor mother…Wife. find Husband Cheating with daugther!!! but even Deuteronomy you say, i have checked, to read but do not find…. about family sex many are missing , this chapter do not repeat the sins of Levite, this is clear… Sure. But how, do you read, how, to conclude, shrine for homosex, i do not know… But it is not true, so sorry… Or animal sex also in temple i say before…. You agree…? And pelase don’t worry, to die from punishment it is not the end, finish to kill with stone… Don’t worry!!! But Muslim Islamic i think do that, really not OK….. Not travel to the country where it is and you not ……. They do not know, but i disapprove…. Killing, must stop with Jesus died once for all!!! You agree? But Jesus say, you must come to the God and pray in the name of Jesus (Himself he say) and the blood for God forgive sinner….. Even Muslim or Chinese, yes… Welcome;. And grant you a new heart and mind, this is the conscience, spirit, to fight to keep the good faith in God bible word, book say what is true and false, right, and wrong, With God Spirit in Christians come after forgiveness, but why it do not do any more the Column of fire and give to some can talk in tongue, Foreign, language!! Without learning…. Miracle, crazy But i believe it,…. but why not me? You know what is this…? And you, know Hebrew, how? Do you know the tongue from Spirit?? Sorry, i ask you…….Paul say this is the good fight….. Keep beleive in God say the values are right or wrong, and not the human understanding, limited too much…. in Proverbs, it is famous… I am sorry. but you do what you want, no problem for me. I do not watch, your door, you close wiht key. I respect the privacy of others,; me too… I like discretion and shy. Me. But God , please, the God in Bible never say this is given approval for homosex. or homosexual relationship couple…… David and Joanthan, close friends but God say, David have wife and kids too.. Many of them. And he lust Bathsheba, this is too…. Very bad, but God forgive…. Ok For david.. But he cry to God for help the same you and me must doo!!! This is bible book. So sorry i say not my opinion but what is writen. but you do what you want….. Good bye. and please do not hate me and forgive me, i am poor in english…. You can. Not publish. if iw rite, bad english, or you hate me… I am OK.

      • Lana says:
        July 24, 2015 at 8:06 am

        Hi, please do you hate me? I am sorry….. I write more, a little… I find you say wrong, again….. Sister? The committment monogamous life long union do you mean? Homosexual sex action,in the Levite they are,written mutual, they agree the partners to do….. God say both are responsible in the Levite, to sleep for sex together and then also responsible to die together then and Paul….. Say, they want , both in the Romans, they want to do, again, mutual… This is not, rape,certain Prostitute, not speak of money? idol Shrine i am sorry, the animal sex too if that so…. Also the man leave the woman, for another man and not come back, to her poor woman Paul says… This is not possible in the Temple only a day idol homosexual sex ,or Paul would not say they abandon behind the woman;, please… Do you agree? I am OK if you disagree I not hate you and i am only sad, but I do not hate… You. if you disagree with me, because i support my word only with God bible, i help you read only…. Me, I do not condemn. you personally, only, the homosexual sex, because God do it; i follow god… Yes. Now I am not angry because i try to help you long time, but please tell me, no problem…….. If you disagree God never approve, homosxual realtion (sexual yes….) i may be a little angry, you reject the bible God and say, you are Christian sister to me, but it is, OK… sorry… The last you say, the only one may be, Promiscuity, this is not clear I agree but also nothing to affirm it is….. The lust is the wrong desire to take what is not, for you and me…. Lust also for food, and, gold… Money. It is not always, the promiscuous. Meaning, many partners, right? Anyway, yes it is the mutual sex is condemend, I am sorry…. committment, mutual agreement i read online…. Maybe monogamous or promiscuous, that, i do not know, but really god seem to condemn the action, and do not care the situation.. This si the truth, from Bible text, you can agree, please… Sorry. I ask you please again do not hate. Me. I am sorry…… Just what inside the Bible book is written, God speak the truth inside and i repeat…….. Not my fault, i not care to condemn. But god care and make the law, and is waiting all our life you and me to cry for God forgive us, but only if we ask in the name of Jesus, (Himself said it), too!!! i agree with God…. You can, i believe all are welcome but God say right and wrong and Christian true must obey, if they really lvoe God, keep the God values of right and wrong as they are, and sorry…. Only man and woman, couple is god-blessed, lifelong, monogamous, commitment…. From different family too, do not forget!!! Not uncle or all that… Okay. Thank you very much. I am not angry if you delete my publish. I only want you read and i hope so much you agree……. I win a sister back to God. if you agree…. Ok, farewell. to you.

      • Lana says:
        July 24, 2015 at 8:09 am

        You can block me, I am sorry…. I write, . too much and i have bad english. I want to confirm you, please I am not trying to convince you too, please, i only say, what is written, more clear, for you. in the bible book, to help you… If you care. But i am not angry…. I hope you agree. Good bye. Farewell. to you.

      • A says:
        July 24, 2015 at 11:06 am

        It does, toevah means something different. Zimah and Toevah are two different things. Notice how in Deut all are repeated expect for the homosexual in lev 18:22. In fact temple hookers are mentioned. What does that tell you?

        http://livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/leviticus-homosexuality

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 24, 2015 at 2:45 pm

        Hello Lana,
        Forgive me as I have to keep this short. First, I do not hate you and I won’t delete your comments. I find value in them and know you are only telling me all these things because you care, and for that I thank you! I just see things differently than you do in regards to this one issue. What Paul describes in Romans of the men abandoning their natural function of the woman I see as them abandoning the marital procreative use of the women and committing these non-procreative acts with both women and men. The culture of this time did perform these sex acts in worship of their idol gods, and in doing so, they abandoned the committed bond that they previously had with their wives. That commitment was permanently broken no matter how many times they were with others. Here’s where I have a problem comparing this to gays and lesbians; we did NOT choose this at all! It’s not like we were heterosexual and one day woke up and decided to “abandon” heterosexuality. I had my first attraction to a girl at a very young age and I was not molested or anything to drive me to feel this way. I spent many years trying to fight against feeling this way, and even went to ex-gay therapy to try to fix me, which they have now all admitted to being a false therapy! One cannot change from being gay to straight, but Bible says: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13. But if there is no way of escaping homosexuality, than how can it be a sin since God promises a way of escape? Escape would be to have “natural” feelings for the opposite sex if this is only what God ordains. But no human has been able to turn from gay to straight, as it has been admitted these people still continue to have feelings for the same sex only. Why? I tell you Lana, I tried hard for many years to stop this and prayed nearly every waking hour for God to heal me. I felt for years on end I was doomed to hell because God refuse to answer my prayer to take it away and be heterosexual. But God placed it on my heart that “love is all the law requires.” He placed it on my heart that love was all that was required of us all as followers of Christ. He asked me if I was acting in a loving way and I was convicted that my biggest problem was not loving myself, as we are to love our neighbor as ourself! So if we don’t have any care for ourself, we cannot fully show love to others. (And I do not speak in a selfish way of loving the self, but that of caring for the self so we can be servants of others.) I cannot see how a loving life-long union is against love. God saved me from killing myself that night by telling me this verse and causing me feel that what I was doing was not against His law of love. Would God trick me only to keep me alive to condemn me? Certainly not! He has shown me great things and I am in awe of His love and mighty presence that is beyond the description of words! I have not been abandoned by God as these Romans were. To the contrary, I have a closer relationship with Him now than ever before when I was living in self-hatred and self-judgment. I know that I have been cleansed of all sin by Him and “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

        If what you say is true, than do you also believe the person who is not able to have children in their marriage as husband and wife are not a God-ordained union? Are they only choosing to stay together for themselves? Without the possibility of having children between this man and woman, is it considered lust and not love?

        Let me clarify again which I said in my first comment to you. The laws repeated in Deuteronomy are those that are sexual sins that prescribe the death penalty in Leviticus. I apologize that in this past comment I only said the “repeated laws.” I did not mean all of them, so I’m sorry and did not mean to sound misleading or waste your time looking. These are only the sexual laws that require to be put to death. As far as not saying a father should not lie with daughter, this is interesting! I had not ever noticed that before, so thanks for sharing. I think Leviticus 18:6 still covers this by saying “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness.”

        But when it comes to shrine prostitution that they did, yes also they performed bestiality in these rituals and this is why it is mentioned in this passage. But bestiality remains a sin because it is not only going after strange (different) flesh and interspecies relations which is sin, but it is also rape, as an animal cannot consent to this. 2 adults can consent and form a loving life-long union, so this is highly different.

        Yes God made man and woman for marriage in the first creation. But just because He created heterosexuals first, this does not prove that homosexuals can’t exist and still walk with God. God created variety or He would have made us all the same. What do you think of the person who is born with both working sexual organs? Wouldn’t they be technically considered gay and straight because they have both organs? What are they to do? Modern medicine would remove one organ, but in the past they had no choice. Would these people be condemned to hell because of their own bodies which they could not change? In the same way, is the gay who only has romantic love and affection for the same gender condemned because of their own love which they can not change?

        Anyway, I must go for now, but wanted to reassure you that I do not hate you and I appreciate your comments. As far as “winning a sister back to God,” I am already with God, and one should not judge another’s relationship with God. I have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit and love God with all my heart and want to please Him always! I will pray for you and also your poor friend who lost her baby. I am so sorry to hear about this very sad thing. :,(
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • John R says:
        July 24, 2015 at 5:29 pm

        http://bible.com/111/lev.18.17.niv “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

        This law covers father-daughter incest. It is kind of hidden because it says a woman and her daughter, but woman could also be translated as wife. Either way, this includes having sex with your own daughter, because in order to get a daughter, you would necessarily have had sex with her mother, thus you would break this law.

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 4:19 am

        Hello sister.. Thank you, no hate feeling, you and me, no problem! I try to write, more constructed, OK…

        First, i read, the word, “qodesh” I agree, it show “sodomite” and “male shrine prostitute”. together, but also, “temple prostitute”, sometime female….
        These were, culture in the Hebrew Levite, Deuteronomy and Kings time, yes.
        Who know what they were doing…. Very obscure….

        I search and find, this book, but sorry i am poor to purchase it and read…
        “The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity. AUTHOR: Stephanie Lynn Budin”
        Do you, know it? Woman, Author, Scholar writer say, her Thesis supposed to confront the “Myth”,(mean, false belief….) about this…. It seem, there is no History evidence in Bible time, Old and New book…. About, Shrine Temple prostitution.
        Then, it mean, if she is correct, only the ritual sex possible, but not Shrine prositution for money paid to the idol worship…. And it is not clear, what they do, past, these “qodesh” homosex, or heterosex? No idea because no evidence… But you sister, you write like you know it must mean only “male prostitute” for homosex, you have the absolute conviction, but where it come from…? no evidence? Data, please… Source , Sorry. but really… Must to back up the claim concretely….

        I agree with you, it may be wrong to translate with, “sodomite”, but again, “sodomite” too is not obvious to mean only “homosexual” because man and woman can do too, but damage the butt… You know what i mean!! I read story, poor lady can not hold the poo after abuse this she like it too much, and she do not know when to stop… Dangerous!! For man and woman, this practice, wrong….sorry i say… If you look, “temple prostitute” male or female,; “sodomite” can do to male or female partner, why they chsoe tsi for qadesh depnd on the context of the bible God, book verses but what to do? They are Scholars to study the truth…. Translate.but anyway, this is, detail In the end, it is not important, because….

        God is Creator and have, power to rule… Over, His Creation, all human, all…. God is absolutely different from you and me… God in book the Levite say… The action, to not engage sexually in the same way, with a woman, but, man with man…. Nothing about, the Temple… You chose to believe, this is only directing to the “qodesh” because of the Historical, culture context of Hebrew this time it is written but this is your really, only your own intepretation and human understanding, and the same other who want to justify their homosex, Biblcially but this is really not what the Spirit said… In the Bible,,the book record the Spirit of God speak to Moses in context of the Levite and do not say that, at all… Even if the context near the Hebrew, seem, indicate, clearly….Moanti… Honestly, What God care, what the Pagan were doing ? God was angry, not happy, why? Because they worship idols? This was, obvious, God reveal Him to Hebrew, only… They worship, all they think is God then… God expect that. Wise the most. God is sad, cry and aslo angry, because Pagans they also changed the man and woman sexuality Giod have give and blessed normally, from the start, Genesis origin record God created male and female for each other to give themself, to each other in beautiful Marriage, to,join again one flesh, what God separated…, And Son Jesus repeat, this is, sure… Nothing about “gay marriage”, again from God plan, sorry but Bible truth… Pagans,around Hebrew Egypt, Canaan, yes… They have perverted, corruption really of the REAL gender, role….. This was, expressing, in the sexual rituals Shrine, maybe most of the time noticed, by culture, near Hebrews, but it is certain, other persons, sorry i say, “regular gays” existed, too normally most likely and same you, some try to build, a “couple”, with, same-sex…… Copy the real God-blessed man and woman Marriage.. Sorry!!

        Now i am tired… I study, Deuteronomy, and please see here
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
        The person, above me write, post? i follow but this article, was very, bad, lies to support homosex, sorry i say…… They who write do not aknowledge the close family and use absence of Levite for homosex penalty, to support their idea, wrong, as you are doing that it is, “shrine prostitute”, target by Levite… But the text do not say that.
        You find, reasons to fight, animal sex, and yes it is not OK….. Strange flesh is both, animal, but sister…. Also, the flesh of other human of same gender, you know why,… Angels only one time, come and men, did not know… But it write, citirs nearby, strange flesh… Flesh is man and woman of teh same body, God first created… This si the Bible truth, if you read the whole in the light of the spirit revealing, body is temple and body is man and woman, Jesus groom and church..Bride

        I stop now, write, tired… Later ok? sorry.

        Last thing, please you know? Reality depend on the perception, of you and me, but only one, reality really exist the same for all, the same only one God and one Truth revealed for all… . Relativity in opinion is wrong, i come your site i ask, pelase show me? Example , god point of view support, homsoexualr elationship, clear? I ask God opinion, not you… I care your opinion and respect but it is not OK to rest and rely, it write, not on your and my own understanding, interpretation, opinion but in God breath spirit only…. Faith come from what is written, Paul say. Not from what is read with the human opinion to support what you want it to say…. Jesus say, search adn you will find but it work also, the wrong way, if yous earch, for justify, wrong, you will find, ways… And this siter, you do it, i am very sorry to say… Christian, must judge other for discipline, because if you fall, who can help you up with God…? Fellow Christian only!!! This is true… Next, you say, onyl your personal experienc,e homosex… You have no diea, male homosex, different from you. And sister, many BECOME homsoex every day, not born… My friend, ehr boyfriend, leave her, for man, why? He say, enjoy better, sex, more thrilling, he get, sodomized… By the new boyfriend, and you know? This happen every day!!! The poor friend of em cry, her lover, stop, with ehr, not give orgasm, but he selfish, want, his orgasm, man, … Terrible. You are kind sister but you not know the wickedness is everywhere and the practice homsoex, even with the good itnention,,wrong, why? The anal, damage, you can ask, hopenst testimony… A woman, can not hold, the…. You know. Toilet. She can not because, broken from, sodomy!!! Sure, many men, too…

        I hate this… God hate this wrong use, practice and not say, specific for this reason. God word is perfect and not have the flaws… Shrine and all in the prhibtion, but if you are not Christian, is your own choice and risk, no problem for me, or God… But problem for you, sorry. I trust you, well meaning but many struggle, same-sex even if yous ay “proceed with caution”, not enough… Please data, sister… Support with bible book!!!

        Farewell to you ok? good bye. not hating.

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 4:28 am

        hi, ok i am tired but i am sorry, i clsoe too fast, i forget to explain…
        Deuteronomy, and please see here
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
        The person, above me write, post? i follow but this article, was very, bad, lies to support homosex, sorry i say…… They who write do not aknowledge the close family and use absence of Levite for homosex penalty, to support their idea, wrong, as you are doing that it is, “shrine prostitute”, target by Levite… But the text do not say that.
        I mean, look the source, Deuteronmy, very few, say, this, clsoe faily sex are missing, a lot…. How you can condlude, and them, support for homosex onyl “qodesh” is nto safe to assumea dn conclude, at all… the Deuteronly is very inconsistant with the Levite, also in other area of close family… but I know you search for support for what youw ant…. I am sad, you not study the whole, only the subjectivity…. with your sexuality, driving… Not Spirit 😦 but i forgive you…. God too? yes… Tolerate but pelase be careful… Opoinion, must not follow, only God. Farewell i sleep now. thank you very much!!

  102. John R says:
    July 21, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    Hi Moanti,

    I just thought of something. Or rather, I just had a realization that might be significant.

    When you look at the incest laws, every single one of them is geared towards heterosexual intercourse. In fact, every law regarding any kind of sex, except for the ambiguous homosexual laws in Lev 18 and 20, are heterosexual in nature. This means 1 of 2 things.

    1) It was banned totally. Homosexual sex was so taboo to the Israelites that for centuries and centuries they didn’t ever need to clarify those ambiguous laws. Or, no one ever engaged in homosexual relations at all, so it was a non-issue.

    2) It was widely accepted. Homosexual sex was considered so normal and consequence free that it didn’t warrant hardly any kind of governing on the level of highly consequential heterosexual sex (ie babies vs no babies). Or, it was assumed that most of the heterosexual laws applied to homosexual laws as well.

    There are pros and cons to each. For example, incest. In view #1, the incest laws are strictly only for heterosexual unions. So if a brother has sex with a brother, that’s not incest. Obviously, that seems to violate the spirit of the incest laws. In view #2, however, homosexual sex is ok, and it is assumed that the incest laws apply as a duality, brother to sister, sister to sister, and brother to brother.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is that ultimately, homosexual sex had to be completely okay or completely banned in order for every sex law to work. Why?

    If homosexual sex was totally banned, then they would only need one law to ban it, and any subcategory of sexual deviance like adultery or incest would fall into the larger category of homosexual sex. So they wouldn’t have needed to write more than one law.

    If homosexual sex was okay in certain circumstances, then because we see hardly any laws governing it except for the vague “man lying with man beds woman,” we can assume that it was largely seen as consequence free and so not worth restricting. Sort of like sports. I’m sure the Israelites had games they played, but we see absolutely no laws written about it. We only see a law about not harming each other physically (an eye for an eye). So perhaps this is similar, in that it is a physical activity, but the Israelites wouldn’t have needed to write about it much because they were much more concerned with baby-making sex.

    In fact, almost every heterosexual law can be boiled down to governing procreation. Without that procreative part, sex within a committed relationship is physically consequence free (in their eyes).

    How can we tell which view? Well, just look at the overall evidence. The pre-Mosaic Law days seem to make no mention, good or bad, towards homosexual sex in general, save for Sodom and Gommorha. And that was gang rape of angels, so not exactly the best case scenario, especially considering that angels are alluded to being gender free naturally.

    The 10 commandments only governed sex by saying “don’t commit adultery,” but no gender is given, so we are left to assume heterosexual, homosexual, or both.

    There isn’t a single story of explicit homosexual relationships, which doesn’t seem to match the idea that all homosexuality is banned. We see LOTS of sin portrayed in the Bible, but not any homosexuality whatsoever, except for gang rape, which was pretty gender neutral, as they gang raped women too. The one strong male friendship we have, David and Jonathan, we don’t see anyone worrying that they might have sex, like we would today. Saul is mad at them for their loyalty to one another, but he never seems perturbed by the amount of time they spend together in and of itself.

    We see one law in two places even remotely dealing with homosexual sex, while we usually have about 3 or 4 of every other law, and this one law has a qualifier on it, “in the beds of woman” or “as one lies with a woman.” This seems more consistent with view #2 than #1, as a complete ban on homosexual sex would probably read more like “a man shall not lie with a man, and a woman shall not lie with a woman.”

    Speaking of which, there are no bans on female homosexual relations either. There are implicit statements condoning threesomes with your wives (or at least nothing banning it if it isn’t incestuous) Lev 18:17, but I don’t see how threesomes could be allowed and how you could avoid a woman touching another woman eventually, or the husband commanding them to do something lesbianish at some point. If all homosexual sex is banned, then we would expect an overt ban on threesomes as well, but we don’t see that.

    Nakedness. What kind of “uncovering nakedness” was banned? When we look at Gen 9:25-30, we see that a it was extremely shameful for a son to see his father’s nakedness. Some suppose that Ham actually DID something to Lot, or that Canaan was involved somehow, but at the very least, seeing a father’s nakedness was considered shameful in these times when it wasn’t consensual (Lot was drunk and had no control over the situation. This is different from a shared skinny dipping situation). This means that a brother having consensual homosexual sex with another brother is actually not explicitly condemned, as this story is the only example we see of men exposing related men’s nakedness, and it is strongly implied that the real problem was the fact that Lot had no control over the situation. I say that because nakedness, when willfully exposed, was actually considered somewhat of a holy thing (1 Sam 19:14).

    On the flip side , there are no overt statements saying “a man shall not lie with another (unrelated) man, for they have uncovered each other’s nakedness.” No, nakedness is only a problem for close relatives, it would seem. Lev 18:10 says basically that your relative’s nakedness is YOUR nakedness (which supports my one flesh theory that the Israelites thought becoming one flesh literally made you one person, and that your children were also one flesh to you in a way). So don’t screw yourself 😛 (sorry) is the general message here. But with the wording, it seems to prohibit just SEEING each other naked, which would condemn joint baths for children… I dunno if that would really be considered sinful, so expose nakedness seems to be only referring to sexual acts here, whereas it has earlier in time referred to the literal act of seeing someone naked. We see the evolution of the usage of words like that in such words as shakab, so perhaps this phrase, expose nakedness, also went through a slight evolution.

    Adultery with a neighbor’s wife isn’t directly stated to expose nakedness, though logically it would, but that falls under a larger category of sexual theft of a wife or husband. The nakedness of your relatives is prohibited even if they are unmarried, whereas the nakedness of your neighbors EX-wife is not prohibited.

    The only other kind of nakedness that is portrayed as shameful is unwilling nakedness, such as in Habakkuk 2, with drunken prisoners of war, where the captives would be forced to walk naked shamefully. This is a middle school kind of shame: “ha, the Israelites members are smaller than the Assyrians!” But this is non sexual, so I guess my theory is slightly debunked in regards to the evolution of the word :P.

    What we can get from all of this is that the Israelites would NOT have had an issue with men consensually exposing nakedness with men and women with women, except for perhaps incestuous sexual exposure. This means skinny dipping was okay, shared baths, and PERHAPS certain sexual unions between same sex couples but who weren’t related.

    In Exodus 21:7-11, we have an interesting passage dealing with female servants/slaves. Vs 7 states that she shall not go out as the male servants do, then proceeds to go through three scenarios that the man has to fulfill at least one of, or else the woman can go free. But what does it mean that she won’t go out as the male servants do? The whole passage is dealing not with ordinary female servants, but concubines, so could it be that the male servants are also referring to male concubines, for men?

    I will admit, I wrote this while very tired, so forgive the lack of detail and clarity I normally like to employ :$. Sorry! The overall message I was trying to get at is that if homosexual sex was considered OK to these Ancient Israelites, we have to interpret every sex verse to see if it applies to homosexuality or not. I would actually say that they probably didn’t need to police homosexual sex hardly at all, because it would have been without consequences in their eyes, and friendships like David and Jonathan’s might very well have been expected to be sexual in nature too (though I’m not saying David and Jonathan definitely had sex). If that was the case, then homosexual sex would have been considered as normal and non-threatening as we consider bro hugs haha. No one needs to write laws about bro hugs, unless you’re hugging strangers who don’t want you to hug them. People don’t write laws to solve nonexistent problems, so the extreme lack of homosexual governing laws, save for one in the OT, points to either it’s relative acceptance or its complete banning, and I think there is slightly more evidence towards it being accepted. Which means I have a LOT of work to do to see what laws apply to homosexual unions and what doesn’t.

    I don’t think you could technically commit adultery via homosexual unions, at least in the OT Israelites point of view. But that doesn’t mean it’s not possible necessarily, as they had false beliefs about divorce…

    Anywho, let me know your thoughts on the matter!

    P.S. I did read your last comment to me, regarding several things you wanted me to think about. Thanks for being so thoughtful! I don’t doubt that God brought you together to your spouse. I would still say that one flesh, according to the biblical examples we have, seems to only apply to heterosexual unions. However, I am beginning to wonder if Jesus merely affirmed that thinking because He knew his audience wouldn’t have understood it if He applied it to homosexual unions too, much like not disputing claims that the world was round… After all, both the Jews and the Romans understand the concept of sex in terms of penetrated and penetrator, not homosexuality or heterosexuality. Changing the definition of one flesh wouldn’t have mattered to them. But it might matter now, so what is most truthful?

    Reply
  103. Lana says:
    July 25, 2015 at 3:46 am

    Hello MR. John I am sorry i permit me i interfere in your message i read you say mistake, not true… Not only the heterosex in close relative God say, You can notice the God Bible say…. Not homosex, more than,the verse stranger, other man and also in the book Levite also the close relative….
    N350 Le.18:22 A man may not lie carnally with another man
    N351 Le.18:7 A man may not lie carnally with his father
    N352 Le.18:14 A man may not lie carnally with his father’s brother
    The number is in the book… I source data always; not practice to bear false witness
    https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=10150108151373627
    Thank you very much!!! Also, I am really sorry i not see daugther and father bad in bible BUT yes they add the Rabbis… in this, the number
    N336 Le.18:10 No relations with one’s daughter.
    This important, God not give law like it is the Tribunal court, you know? Must be wise to adapt, the truth, God say, protect, man and wife and kids, and condemn all that go against this, include, all in Levite sex… And homosex too, never approved written and also no Rabbis command i am sorry, you not hate me too… please!!!
    The New Book 1050… Do you know?
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/william-ben-carl/what-are-the-1050-commandmentsmitsvout-in-the-new-testament/10150352289233627
    200 Miscellaneous Commands:
    83 Have faith before God for things not con­demned in Scripture (ROMANS 14:22-23)
    But you and me and sister, know, homosex too condemned in general because only action described, not “title” and not specific to this idol Shrine prostitute, (and no boy sex slave, in the book Bible… where???) or please give me the data please… It is important to not say with no support in Bible or Rabbi (Priest i do not know, I do not trust much…..) if you are honest (important, please, lie and hide secret, is wrong, damage the trust and make you not reliable…) with yourself and the God bible…Good!!! Farewell to you too.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 25, 2015 at 3:06 pm

      Hi Lana,
      I haven’t read your other comments yet but will. I just had to say with all due respect, I’m not sure what Bible version you’re quoting and how your native language translates them. But I’ve never heard in my life the way you quoted Leviticus 18:7. It’s “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.” (ESV). Uncovering the nakedness of your father WHICH IS the nakedness of your mother means don’t sleep with your mother, because she belongs to your father, so by sleeping with her, you put them both to shame. Also your quoting of Leviticus 18:14 is totally not how I’ve ever heard it quoted in any English Bible. Here again, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.” (ESV). Uncovering the nakedness of your fathers brother THAT IS you shall not approach his wife. Because by sleeping with the aunt, this also shames the uncle. This is metaphor dear Lana, to show the relationship between family and who is negatively affected. But if this is how you read the verses, then no wonder you think the Bible is so against gays!!! And just so you fully know, going to the ORIGINAL words of Scripture for Leviticus 18:22, all it says translated into English is “against man no lie bed wife.” Now how they decided to add in “a man shall not lie with another male as with a female” is beyond me. The word “against” is usually used in context of doing something against someone. Like committing adultery against your wife. So “against man” seems more like something not to do against a man, not “with a man.” Not to mention the Hebrew word for “lie with” (shakab) in this verse is ALWAYS used in the context of rape, coerced sex OR a deceptive sexual union with someone who is married when we look at every sexual use in the entire Bible. 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/ (I quote my own source because this is something no one has ever quoted individually as proof as I do here…and by the way, the same results are found in the Greek Old Testament for shakab’s equivalent Greek word “koimao.”)
      So this isn’t even a word in the Bible used for normal consensual sex when we look at its repeated Biblical context. The translators clearly added in comparison language that is not present in the original such as “as with” or “like as” (comparing to a woman.)
      If you can’t believe that the original words only say “Against man no lie bed wife,” then here’s the proof:

      Original Word: אוֹת
      Part of Speech: Preposition
      Transliteration: eth
      Phonetic Spelling: (ayth)
      Short Definition: against
      ———-
      Original Word: זָכָר
      Part of Speech: noun masculine; Adjective
      Transliteration: zakar
      Phonetic Spelling: (zaw-kawr’)
      Short Definition: male
      ———-
      Original Word: לֹא
      Part of Speech: Adverb
      Transliteration: lo
      Phonetic Spelling: (lo)
      Short Definition: no
      ———-
      Original Word: שָׁכַב
      Part of Speech: Verb
      Transliteration: shakab
      Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-kab’)
      Short Definition: slept
      [Refer to above link]
      ———-
      Original Word: מִשְׁכָּב
      Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
      Transliteration: mishkab
      Phonetic Spelling: (mish-kawb’)
      Short Definition: bed
      ———-
      Original Word: נָשִׁים
      Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
      Transliteration: ishshah
      Phonetic Spelling: (ish-shaw’)
      Short Definition: wife

      From http://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/18-22.htm Click on strong numbers # above each word for proper definition, and see how they translate words incorrectly into the verse even on the page. The word “bed” cannot be “as with” (a woman) and the word “against” cannot be “with a” (man.) It’s not verbally accurate and inserts major assumption.

      Thanks Lana…. Oh and your link you left for John didn’t work for me, so I’m not sure where you got your info.

      Reply
      • Angela says:
        July 25, 2015 at 3:14 pm

        Hey Moanti question what of these two verse

        Numbers 5:11-13
        Leviticus 15:18
        Are they using shakab?

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 25, 2015 at 5:18 pm

        Hi Angela!
        Thanks for the questions! Leviticus 15:18 uses shakab in a context of literally laying down. Remember how it isn’t always used as meaning a type of sex, but also can mean the act of laying, sleeping or dying? Well in this case, the words that make this verse sexual are “shekabah zera” which means “carnally” (or “sexually”) and zera means “semen.” So when shakab is mentioned in this verse, it is the physical act of lying down (not sexual). So it’s like saying “laying down / carnally / with semen” or even “laying down / sexually with an emission / of semen.” So the sex part comes from the clarifying words shekabah zera. Had shakab been the sexual word, then it wouldn’t need shekabah as a clarifier and would have probably said shakab zera, but alas, it does not. 🙂

        This is the same for the Numbers 5:11-13 verse exactly. Shakab is used in the sense of physically laying down for sex, but not the word for sex itself. The clarifier words that make it sexual again are “shekabah zera.” So it is properly “and a man / lying / with woman / carnally (or “sexually”) / with semen…” I might explain this better 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/

        Let me know if that makes sense. Thanks Angela!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 4:26 pm

        Good morning yes welcome you can ask me, i live in Philippines age 17 the 28 October. I like to read the Bible King James bible. and the site Hub i like too!!! Please forgive me sister, I do not fight i am not so against gays, i am sad and sorry, you think, i repeat what the book, record, God in the Bible defend Hebrews God children first against doing, the homosexuality activity, behavior, it is not directed and not reserved to the gays, you know? god despise nobody relax…. But God despise the evil action. And me too!! You say it good, it is described, with no title…. Qodesh, not mentioned, in Levite only a man must not sleep (sexual) with a man the same another sleep with woman. it describe, the activity. not title, it is fair because God do the same for the animal sex, it do not speak of Temple Shrine prostitute animal… I do not want to know!! And all in Levite… Only the action is wirtten, not to do…. Very clearly, and short. list full of sex sin, this about Bible; I like and love practical the God bible. Easy to read. Accessible?. Principles. Jesus lesson.

        You ask me, family close relation sexual, problem. I hate this. Levite 18:7 i find :King James Bible quote; 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.
        Yes, I agree this is the homosex, it say, or the mother, the bible speak to men Hebrew they lead the family,…. Why? You can not find too?
        Hmm… The other, where? King James Bible 18:14
        Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. I read the two, first not uncover the nakedness (peek in the bathroom and sleep sexually!!) of thy father’s brother. And also, the aunt is not OK…
        But yes I read you, the nakedness mean the wife of them, if you want to read that way in this one…. But for 18:7 this is clear to me. it say or… i am sorry!!
        Rabbis incldue in the 650, do you know? 1050 for the new Book…. So much work to do if you want to be Saint like Jesus!!!

        I try to find about daugther and father but it is not there!!!
        18:10 from the Rabbis? sorry i do not see it, and not agree…
        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. This say, the children, daugther…. Not related. to Father. with his daugher same lineage…..
        But MR John say 18:17 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.
        Here i do not see daugtehr and father but the father sexually, engage with the mother and daugther same time….. Very crazy. Anyway, the close family sex, is wrong, this is the basis for say, and that is including the daugther!!! The principle is safe, God forbid all that is not god-blessed in the real Marriage of man and woman…. Easy.to understand?That include the homosex, i tell you, many can enter and leave the behavior, it is not reserved to the homsoexual gays but me i am not so against gay the human person (lesbian too, not worry!!) to read me you can take your time sister. Good luck.with your life!! and Good day for today. Farewell to you again. I am sorry you think. I not hate you. I promise you.

        Hey!! Sorry do you forget? i ask you about the speaking of tongues, why, the column of fire when Spirit come, not happen? and do you know Hebrew, from Spirit? Thank you very much. I am curious. Ok good bye.

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 4:47 pm

        Hi again sister please forgive me i write more i forget to explain one detail before i close it… I read you sorry i copy you… Not to mention the Hebrew word for “lie with” (shakab) in this verse is ALWAYS used in the context of rape, coerced sex OR a deceptive sexual union with someone who is married when we look at every sexual use in the entire Bible
        I read you, the original Hebrew say this confusing but many Scholar work to translate for years (centuries!!!) and all I find about this, Levite 18:22 and 20:13 all translate to very close like the same King James Bible book in Hub…. Yes even centruies ago!!! You say, rape, coerced, (forced?) and deceptive (cheating) But you know the mutual agreement in the Levite 20 it is very clear they are doing it, consensual committment (agreement) becausee God hold them responsible,together, both man and man God say, to punish them together because they chose to sleep (sexually) together…. This is not possible to do rape, or coerced (forced) , or deceptive (cheating) even if it say shakab. They have sleep (sexually) by their own choice,decision even if this word suggest they were not consensual…. I hope youc an agree because it is very logic and reasonable I give you example, you can say you have sex or you can say you make love…. I hate the first to have sex it mean selfish pleasure to me and not make love….. Make love is to create love together and join together, this is beautiful as God created the man and woman to do this, sexuality normally, after Married only!! but same premarital is sin, like homosex it is tolerable but only, for a little time… Some years? But not more!!! OK. Good bye. Now really. sorry i write too much….

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 25, 2015 at 6:26 pm

        Hi Lana!
        It’s so great to hear that you have such a deep love for Bible wisdom at a young age! Praise God! You are very diligent in your studies here and that is a good thing. 🙂 The only thing I would say you should be careful about is the understanding of this verse in King James. I think King James overall does have the best translation of all the Bible versions for most things. But it’s Old English wording can be confusing for many, even native English speakers! But despite this, I truly have never heard any Christian or pastor or Rabbi say that Leviticus 18:7 was condemning father/son sex. Rather, proper meaning is that of every other translation which says:
        “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.”
        Here’s another:
        “You are not to shame your father by having sex with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual intercourse with her.”

        And another:
        “Neither your father’s nakedness nor your mother’s nakedness is to be exposed. She’s your mother, so you are not to have sexual relations with her.”

        And here’s one more (but there are more):
        “You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual intercourse with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have intercourse with her.”

        When the Bible says “uncover the nakedness” it is used as shame or sexual. So do not uncover the nakedness of your father by having sex with your mother. She is your mother. Do not have relations with her. Do you see the targeted topic here is the mother? Even in King James look at the emphasis on the mother:

        “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.” Had this been directed sexually towards dad (rather than showing the shaming of a son taking his mom from dad), it could have said something more like – “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy MOTHER, shalt thou not uncover: He is your father; thou shalt not uncover his nakedness. She is thy Mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.” But it does not say that….. So it would seem that like every other context of these types of verses, it is talking about shaming the spouse of the relative whom they were having the affair with. So by having sex with the mom would be “uncovering the nakedness” of dad (metaphorically). Same as having sex with the uncles wife would be like “uncovering the nakedness” of uncle metaphorically. It is not literally having sex with both dad and mom or both uncle and aunt. Now I can see why you kept bringing up the uncle thing…. But can I ask you kindly, is this something taught by pastors in your area? I’m very curious to know, as out here in the U.S., we have many hateful anti-gay pastors, but they don’t even use those verses against gays! So it’s just a surprise to hear.

        Yes I am familiar with the book that tries to discredit shrine prostitution. And guess what? It tries to discredit the Bible as myth because the Bible is one of many texts that describe and mention shrine prostitutes. As far as exchange of money? I’m not even sure of this. This is not the type of prostitute that accepts money, but instead accepts seed as sacrifice to the idols. This isn’t about having sex for pleasure and paying for it, but rather giving the male seed as a sacrifice to the idol gods through the intercessor (or “middle man.”) So we wouldn’t expect to see evidence of money transfer, so such argument would seem to be irrelevant.

        You said why would God care what the pagan is doing? The point is that the context that was known of homosexual relations was only that of the relation between the idol follower and shrine prostitute as well as the wicked pagans who had gang-rape (forced) sex for power, punishment or payment with foreigners that came into their land (Genesis 19, Judges 19.) Because of this, God forbid it for the Levites. He also forbid them from wearing clothes of 2 different fabrics, forbid them from shaving the corners of their beards, forbid them from eating shrimp, etc. These are Old Covenant laws to set them apart from those pagans who practiced them and we are under the New Covenant of Christ. Is it inherently wrong to eat shrimp? Is it inherently wrong to shave the corners of a mans beard? Is it inherently wrong to wear clothes with mixed fabric? The answer to all is no. These were commands given to the Levites to follow and be set apart as different, but for them, it was seen as wrong. Had the Levites been with men, they would be doing an action in imitation of the idol worshipers with shrine prostitutes, so to be set apart as different, it was forbidden for them. Obviously procreation was of upmost importance under Old Covenant, but under the New Covenant there is no command to procreate! It is now an option, not command (refer to Matthew 19 with Jesus about marriage and also eunuchs.) We are not under this old law and are to now follow the law of love by loving God and loving others. Paul shows many times that love is our test to know what’s moral and what’s immoral. If it’s loving, it’s fulfilling the law. If it’s harming, it is sin. So this can also be the test of what rules were God-made for all time or temporary for the Jews, and rules that were man-made for temporary for the Jews.

        “Sodomite” is a modern term. It didn’t mean butt sex (excuse my wording) until a few hundred years ago. I also feel terrible for that girl who can’t hold her bowels, but sounds like the poor thing was raped or forced violently, which doing harm = sin. But despite this poor woman you speak of, I have yet to meet a gay man who has trouble holding his bowels.

        I’m also sorry for the woman who was left by the man for another man. This is one type of case and it is sad! If he likes males better, but also likes women, he is bisexual, not homosexual. There are people who like both males and females, but may prefer one more than the other. But when you are homosexual, there is no liking for both genres. There is also no sudden liking from the opposite sex for the same-sex. If it were that easy Lana, I would not be a lesbian and would have chosen to be straight a long time ago! If one can choose to be gay, then they could just as easily choose to be straight. Also please understand that its not only about sex at all. It’s about love and affection and spending your life with a compatible partner. If it’s all about sex only, it is empty and lustful. But its not all about sex for those who want a life-partner and there are many many gay and lesbian couples who are with 1 partner and spend their life with this 1 person! So there are many misconceptions and completely false data out there that seek to condemn gays. The diseases one can get from being promiscuous are equally as dangerous for heterosexuals. More people in Africa with HIV/AIDS due to heterosexual prostitution and having babies with the disease (poor things!)

        I’m not sure of your current relationship status, but I’m sure you can agree that you yourself did not choose to be straight. Right? Any man you have had a romantic liking to was out of your control and came naturally, right? Any woman you see you do not have any romantic liking to, right? Well it’s the exact same for me (but opposite.) The ones whom I’ve fallen in love with in my life have only been female. The males I have known in my life, I only see as a friend and brother. Trust me Lana, I have tried to be with men in my younger years. It’s not that I haven’t met “the right one” or not wanted to like/love them in this way. It just repels me just as you are repelled from romance with women. So when Christians try to say it is a chosen lifestyle, this is not true as God as my witness!

        So why then did God allow us to be this way? Why doesn’t he change it when we wanted to be changed? There are really only 2 options here. Either there is nothing broken to fix OR His grace is sufficient to still save us despite having these affections only for the same gender. That is why we want to be with 1 partner for life because it’s the closest thing to what God says is good to have a marriage, and NOT go out and be promiscuous by having many sex-partners. It just happens to be with same-gender because if we were to be with opposite gender spouse then we would be physically repelled. Doing that is harming to the unloved straight spouse and it’s not fair to them. This is why I am convicted against myself personally marrying a man. It would be unloving for me to put a man in this situation when I have no capacity for marital love for males. Also, for myself to be with a man sexually is violating my natural affection and feels like a rape. But there are those that do this; but sadly many of those marriages (between a gay and a straight) end with divorce and very hurt and damaged minds and feelings. But then when we see 2 come together as suitable partners (sharing the same orientation), there is potential for great love and good. Even moreso when both partners are Christians and have God at the head of their union to be able to pray together, study the Word and make all decisions based on being led in prayer! So why would God forbid this loving bond for the gays? When 2 Christians have God at the head of their union, how can we condemn them? I feel to share this with you: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:24-29).

        I leave you with this. We know that God gives the Holy Spirit to those who believe and He also promised to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask. So all Christian believers have the Holy Spirit within them. But there happens to be people who are gay that are also Christian believers. Does God not given them the Holy Spirit? It is written: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:7,8. This refers to Gentiles, but more importantly is the word that “God showed that he accepted them by giving them the Holy Spirit.” So if all gays are not eligible for Salvation, than why has God shown acceptance of them into the body of Christ by giving them the Holy Spirit? Their hearts are purified by faith. So are not the gays also purified and accepted by God through our Lord Jesus Christ? “Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:13.

        One last thing. Paul confirmed that there will be disagreements between genuine and true believers on doctrinal matters of personal conviction (again, refer to Romans 14 and Acts 15.) When I (and others) do these Bible studies, we are only looking at everything in depth to find it’s solid meaning and modern application by looking at original wording, Biblical context and cultural context. It may seem like a new doctrine to you, but as mentioned before, Philo the Jewish writer (who has historically said to have influenced early church fathers) lived at the time of Jesus and Paul in Rome and spoke in his detailed Bible commentary of Leviticus 18:22 being about male shrine prostitutes. He also reports about them being in Rome and him personally seeing them out in the streets. So wouldn’t the religious who lived in the time of Christ and Paul know more about the meaning of translation of these verses than our modern eyes? They were much closer to the culture so understood cultural context more than we ever could. So shrine prostitution is no myth unless we want to discredit the Bible as a myth, which we know it is not! Read 1 and 2 Kings in the Bible and tell me if it doesn’t speak of shrine prostitutes. If it’s what you say only about people who have anal sex, then people who perform anal sex are strangely connected with idols in the Bible….

        Thank you again Lana! Also, I’m not trying to convince you differently, but rather just show you why we see it in this different way. No hate to you my sister in Christ!! Much Christian love!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Angela says:
        July 25, 2015 at 6:58 pm

        Leviticus 15:18: If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening.

        So are they saying if there is semen on them and they have to bath? So what carnally doesn’t mean sex?

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 25, 2015 at 7:09 pm

        Sorry I didn’t mean to confuse. Carnally does mean sex… It’s just that shakab isn’t the word that means carnally. Shekabah is the word that means carnally (which is sex.) So “shakab / shekabah / zera” means “lying / carnally (with emission of) / semen. But you see, the word shakab in this case is the act of lying down. In this verse they are lying down for sex, but shakab isn’t the word for sex. Shekabah is the word that makes it about sex.
        So it’s:
        Shakab – lying down
        Shekabah – carnally (sexually)
        Zera – with semen

        So yes, if the male lies down (shakab) with the woman and they have sex (shekabah) which produces an emission of semen (zera), then they must wash themselves, but still be considered ritually unclean (unable to approach the Jewish Temple) until the evening.

      • Angela says:
        July 25, 2015 at 7:32 pm

        So in order to see the different between shakab and Shekabah where does appear in

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 25, 2015 at 8:02 pm

        Scroll through the verses that use shekabah http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7902.htm
        See that it’s usually used as talking about sexual intercourse, carnally, seminal or copulation. Sometimes it’s used as “emission.” But whenever it’s paired with shakab, it makes for the sexual meaning. So “shakab shekabah” means “lying carnally.” Shakab alone could mean lying, sleeping, dying, or sex (of the types we have mentioned previously.) But when shakab is paired with shekabah, shakab means lying down and shekabah is “carnally” or “for sex.” So this means it doesn’t have to be in the context of rape, coerced sex or sex by deception when shekabah is present because that would make shakab only mean lying down. Shakab can only mean sex (not just lying down) when it is the ONLY sexual word used in the sentence and is not paired with something else that makes the verse mean sex. So we would consider these verses to make shakab only mean the act of physically laying down, as shekabah is the word that means “sexually” in these cases.
        Here is another example in Leviticus 19:20
        “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.”
        Shakab has to mean “lie down” and not “sex” or the verse would read “and whoever has sex sexually….” Do you see what I mean?

        Now here is a verse that uses shakab by itself to mean sex only (not lying down.):
        Genesis 34:2
        “When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped (shakab) her.”
        Shakab is the only thing here that can mean sex. So it is talking about rape, NOT laying down (shakab) for sex (shekabah). But there are other words that can also sometimes mean or imply sex such as shekobeth, yada, and others.
        Scroll down to see uses of shakab: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7901.htm But click on individual verses in the INT (interlinear) section to see if sexual clarifying words are used or not. Also pay close attention to context…. Again, I explain all of this here for each sexual verse in detail: 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/

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 4:53 pm

        Last, i forget… To conclude. I mean, the word you say shakab it is normal Hebrew is used negative in the Levite full of sex sin…. You think God say to not make love, or to not have sex in them…? The same, shakab mean have sex ebcaue make love is positive word,…. So sorry!!! Only go-blessed, man and woman make love, with the committment….. But i agree with you civil gays and lesbians best keep only one, partner because very bad disease…. But they are still not god-blessed and tolerated only a little, if they do not feel they should to change the homosexuality activity because god denoucne it, then sorry, they are not obeying God….. It is our choice, freedom. and responsiblity….. Fair yes? Now, i stop to write, forgive me!!!

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 5:24 pm

        Very bad… Me… i forget! I read me again , sorry i write as i think, same time… the only trasnlation i agree with you, is Deceptive (cheating it is possible with mutual agreement, this word Hebrew maybe say they do cheating but the text do not say they do cheating the wife… I reflect strong, pray to Spirit guide me to God revealing only from the Bible book to support, not my imagination…. The Disciple Paul reveal, from Spirit, sexual sin the man or woman commit it is against the sinner own body… The body, also revealed is temple of God spirit… The body also God created it, the first human, was both male and female, before taking the female out of the male.put adam to sleep and taje Eve from the rib? I do not think this creature was Hermaphrodite? But it is a possibility. It is still very rare, as you ask me, this reality, a human born with both working sexual organs, function to this happen… what gender they feel more, ? is their sensibility to tell. I not like to interfere in the privacy of others… Genetic anomaly, so sad but like you have the disposition, condition to feel, attracted to same sex, others suffer,endure, trouble from, birth, hormones…. Me, I have bad teeth….. And chronic disease, very handicap,…. My life, socially…. Every one must deal with their own problems it is, fair… But too this is why fellow others persons compassion to help endure suferring and problems… Okay, i go to the market now. Fzrewell to you and pelase i am sorry, i write, not constructed often…. I am lazy too much 😦

      • Lana says:
        July 25, 2015 at 5:32 pm

        My god, why i forget to me,ntion what i miss to write? You can stop to publish me i write too many…. I am sorry so much…
        Thanks Lana…. Oh and your link you left for John didn’t work for me, so I’m not sure where you got your info.
        I tell you other, new source
        613 Old Book
        http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
        1050 New book
        http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/1050-new-testament-commands
        Yes, so many!!! to be like Saint, Jesus….. is difficult, but Spirit provide with prayer. Ok bye serious!! and sorry forgive me….. Sister?

      • Angela says:
        July 25, 2015 at 6:54 pm

        Lana Sodomited has nothing to do with buttsex in fact the word sodomite is this is Qadesh. I thas nothing to do with being gay or homosexuality

      • Lana says:
        July 26, 2015 at 12:46 am

        Hello thank you so much, my friend, lose ehr baby 8 month…. And the other, boyfriend cheat, leave for other guy, really…. The woman, problem, toilet, this was not my friend i read online, she was not rape or forced…. She confess tow arn otehrs, not do this. she loved too much, sorry, anal sex and this caused her, lose, the control of…..

        I understand you, good sister but your experience is limited to your experience, simply to speak, of lesbian, you can not know the gay (man) homosexuality experience, and ineside the experience of each sex (gender) there is variety of reasons and influence to control!!!

        Thank you yes i study a lot and i focus only to follow and trust the source i find match the Spirit, God …. I do it with your soruce and you not give me data 😦
        The Doctors o fthe world, do not agree the homsoexuality orientation can be fixed and never change….. They do not agree it is in the birth, or elarned later in life…. I know a friend of my family, old man almost 50 age he do not stop to heart broken by women, and in the end? He turn to other man, hurt by woman too much he can not trust any more…. The other, yes he wanted the pleasure from, other man, sodomized him….. More than, to give orgasm to my friend!!! It is selfish reason. But the other one, old man? not selfish, only, deceived by woman too often, and try, this other, way, because? He not know God bible forbid….. And he follow him sensisbility, heart broken by woman, and the internet, media….

        Me i live in the faith 7th Days Adventist church from my birth and you? I like it but disagree some with the priests, but the homosexuality activity (behavior) is only one in the sin of fornication for us, along with the clsoe family sex, animal sex and other sins outside of man and woman god-blessed…. it is very simple!!! I know the sexual activity it come from the sensibility to share affection, for good reason it seem and not harm, but still, i give youe xample, the child steal wallet for good reason it seem and not harm, only to surivive and buy him (or her) food with the money…. But still God sayStealing is wrong. The Son Jesus say ask and you will be given this is why the kid, sin, he (or she) do not know god, Jesus lesson and do not ask the mister for some money, charity to buy food…. And steal the wallet…….

        You get it? I tell you, the word Hebrew I agree deceptive (cheating) but no wife in cotnext, why? I compare to Bible and told you, it is Paul reveal the answer to this…. Every one sin sexual immorality, sin against their own body…. They deceive (cheat) their own body purpsoe to join in one flesh, ideally, by God will, (plan) in creating man and woman together (yes, the first human is like that in Genesis) and then separate in two, one male and one female to join together again in Marriage (god-blessed only this).

        I study very much, sister but you not give me data… I always try to follow spirit and Bible source… If i can not i leave it and cosnider, dangerous too much to follow…. You say, God create some with the affection to romance the same gender but Bible say, about this, where…? Please can you show me? I think not say…. But if you can i wondider to obey God Bible…. but so far the homsoexuality relationshionship, is not example of god-blessed, David and Jonathan, not the gays because David liked women, so much…. He lust Bathsheba…. Now this is possible he change from one to other same gender to normal gedner interest (sorry i say, accordind to God norm for this) but very strange… God bless not the sin. The homsoexual (sleep with same gender) behavior is condemned ,God not say more than this, no title is given, so if you feel, unfair against gays lesbians, i am sorry but it is not in the bible…. Also bisexuality can engage in homosexual action, so……

        Sister you ask me, I chose if i am straight? I tell you yes i chose, i am 17 soon the 26 Octobver and i am subject to the temptation to same sex interest, also the same every one, i think!!! I am sorry you think it is good for you, but i think you are in the hands of the problem i pray God deliver you… Paul say everything is permitted to Christian with grace but not licence to sin, not be master by anything…. the things yous ay, shrimp, i read often argument, but this is not the morality sex sin…. I ask you, is this OK to do the other sex sin, in the list? You say right it is important the cultural cotnext but more important is the bible Context….

        Levite,God only condemn the behavior same gender sex no title, and it is in context along with close relative sex and animal sex, I think you can not force the meaning of Temple because it is not biblical context…. God care what Pagans do, and care mroe Hebrews not follow, including, Shrine thing and also, simply, same-gedner sex is forbidden by God principle in Levite…. Hmmm… I know it is complicated alone but Spirit give answer….. Adultery, (cheating) always wrong…. Fornciation, always wrong… And this is premarital sex, including, the homsoex…. Why? Becasue only man and woman union is god-blessed, no data to support, same sex Biblically… Sorry but true. and this is what, Chrsitian faithful must submit, their sensibility and opinion. Deny the self to follow Jesus obey god. yes?

        I finish to say, i study your word, often, you and other, want tos ay, no male adn female, distinction, not important but this is lie, false……. Online i find
        28. There is in this sonship by faith in Christ, no class privileged above another, as the Jews under the law had been above the Gentiles ( Romans 10:12 , 1 Corinthians 12:13 , Colossians 3:11 ).
        bond nor free–Christ alike belongs to both by faith; whence he puts “bond” before “free.” Compare Note,
        neither male nor female–rather, as Greek, “there is not male and female.” There is no distinction into male and female. Difference of sex makes no difference in Christian privileges. But under the law the male sex had great privileges. Males alone had in their body circumcision, the sign of the covenant (contrast baptism applied to male and female alike); they alone were capable of being kings and priests, whereas all of either sex are now “kings and priests unto God” ( Revelation 1:6 ); they had prior right to inheritances. In the resurrection the relation of the sexes shall cease ( Luke 20:35 ).
        one–Greek, “one man”; masculine, not neuter, namely “one new man” in Christ ( Ephesians 2:15 ). here http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/galatians/galatians-3.html
        I study, the depth…. The bible book reveal, i have a beautiful edition with a lot of explanations…. Do you know? The Temple of Jerusalem, the veil is tearing when Jesus die, and this is why, it is now open to all, no male or jew or gentile to come to God… In the ancient time only the High Priest can come to God and the others, are not allowed, to come to god… There is the court of women and the court of gentiels, separated, to not come near because they were considered unclean by the religious in Jews…. this is the correct meaning of the way no male and no female, no greek no jew… It mean SOn Jesus open the access to all people no disctinction, it do not mean, not any mroe important, gender, this is crazt to think (i am sorryi not say you crazy only the idea!!!)…..
        I hope you udnerstand me and not hate me but sister, in the cotnext, hoenstly, it do not say anything and you use it to support your view, i am sad 😦

        I wish you read the article i find online…..http://www.christianforums.com/threads/shrine-prostitution-was-that-what-moses-meant-in-leviticus-18-22-20-13.7677608/ please do you read it? AmberBird? He (or she) is false Christian because he fight the law God gives….. Yes Grace not Law save but Law food and cult finish, but morality? still applied…. Sister, this Amberbird not answer to the number 17…i study seriously, diligent seeker of God Truth me too but i understand you are offended, but really… God speak homosexual behavior not the title of homosexual, man or woman so you relax God despise nobody and killing with stone: finish!!! But Disciple Paul and Jesus fight for Marriage monogamous man and woman only, and for sexuality inimacy only in that case too, or esle it is sin adutlery, or fornianction, very simple…. Including the homosex, if you are hoenst to see…. Your sensiblity, i respect, and udnerstand but surredner to God command to not do fornication, or not? is up to your freedom and good will to obey god but alon,e not… Ask Spirit. and fight temptation to follow Jesus. I like you but i hate evil. You can relax too i not hate you and God give time to change, the whole life but also…. Death never know when so you must be prepared and always condess to cry for god help in Jesus name-Himself say) to forgive you…. Thank you sorry i write very bad as soon i think… I am lazy to contruct the message and english i like it but poor study… But you understand me? I am sorry too ask you many time, the Hebrew, how do you know? Spirit give you tongue (foreign language)? Why not me for english I have to study to learn…. And Column of fire Miracle of Spirit come why not any more I am sorry i insist again…… Farewell to you. For today. And the sunday!!!

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 26, 2015 at 5:25 am

        Hi Lana!
        Good to hear from you again! I am very inspired by your thirst and hunger for God and His Word. I find your study very amazing, especially for a woman of your younger age. I do understand what you are saying, don’t worry. I agree with much on general issues you present of faith. But on issue of homosexuality, I see the Text differently due to all the things mentioned. What would you like a source for? Let me know and I’ll give it to you. But most of what I’ve said to you is sourced above, and if not, then if it’s from my own Biblical study, this can easily be repeated by anyone with the interlinear Bible online.

        But as far as sexual orientation described in the Bible, this again requires historical study to back up. The closest thing is perhaps about eunuchs “who were born that way” which is in Matthew 19. This cannot be simply talking about the unmarried because we are all born unmarried… There were 2 types of eunuchs known in the Roman world, natural and whole eunuchs and mutilated eunuchs. Natural and whole eunuchs were males without sexual desire towards females and were “natural and whole” in that they had all their sexual organs intact. Mutilated eunuchs were those who were physically castrated (their sexual organs were cut off.) Jesus mentions 3 eunuchs, 1) ones who were born that way, 2) ones who were made that way by men 3) ones who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven. Number 1 would have to be talking about natural and whole eunuchs because they were born without affection towards the female. Number 2 was clearly talking about the mutilated type, as someone did it to them, and number 3 could be talking about mutilated by choice. This is the closest thing that might be talking about sexual orientation, or at least referring to one with this different affection. Jesus does not speak negatively about them, but instead says “not everyone can accept this saying” (referring to male and female marriage.) The thing is, natural and whole eunuchs had rights in Rome to get married and adopt children. They were just unwilling to have sex with females to bore those children. So if this is known in the time of Jesus, he could not have been speaking about 3 sets of eunuchs who don’t marry. Only possibly number 2 and for sure number 3.

        But we know that in the end times there will be an increase in knowledge, and even moreso an increase in Biblical knowledge. So we shouldn’t discount something based on not fully understanding sexual orientation in the past. It only is something newly named, not a new concept. Good fruit comes from bringing gays to Christ, and the hateful condemnation of gays has widely made them scatter away from wanting to be a Christians and also scattered many heterosexuals too who see the hypocrisy of the inclusive message. Please note that I do not see your words as hateful at all, and I so appreciate this Lana! Thank you very much for this! Many Christians could learn from your gentle and loving approach. You do show the love of God and it is said “by your fruits you shall know them.” Likewise, this alternative perspective has drawn many to Christ which is good fruit, whereas the hateful condemnation attitude has produced bad fruit of people rejecting the message. This is more about negative unloving attitude than about what’s written in Scripture. So thank you again.

        I have been in study of the Hebrew language for years. But I will say this. God led me to something amazing within the language that I had not known or been taught previously, and once found, I have been able to extract amazing things from the Hebrew letters themselves which goes beyond a study of the phonetics. This I feel is most certainly a guiding by the Holy Spirit, as His presence is felt in amazing ways when these things were revealed to me. I feel that it also helps prove that the Bible is a Divine book unlike any other, as there’s no way this could be random. Let all praise be to God who’s Holy name is above all!!!! Rather than explain what I’m referring to in a super long comment here, please read this which explains it all (and note the Hebrew letter chart of meanings based on the Ancient Hebrew Research Center is at the bottom of the page): 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/

        I’m sorry but my phone (which I am using to write) is about to die, and it’s so late here it’s pretty much almost morning. I’ve got to go to bed, so I’ll have to write more to you later and will be busy the next few days for the most part. But quickly, I agree with your explanation about the male and female and am aware of everything you wrote regarding the high priest and the veil. It would just seem that in the new creation “we will no longer marry or be given into marriage, but be like the angels of Heaven.” So if gender isn’t important in the new perfect creation, than why must it be so drastically important between 2 people who love each other here on earth? Those with 2 working sexual organs are more common than you would think. ( I’ll have to find the data later since phone will die.) Also in this data it shows even more people that are not born with XX or XY chromosomes, but extra which makes them neither fully male nor fully female genetically. So in the beginning, God made them male and female, but now we have more than that (as the differences should be disregarded for being “rare.”) Things have changed since the first creation, wether it be from the sin of a fallen world (which may be giving Satan too much credit for people God physically created) or by the delight of God in variety. I am convicted that He can use any one of us who are drawn to Him for His great glory. He has used the outcasts to spread His message many more times than once in Scripture, so why not gays?

        Last, you choosing to be straight means you have some attraction to females. I’m guessing it’s very minimal compared to your attraction to males. Am I right or wrong on this? And no, not everyone has attraction to both genders, but Kinsey would tell us there’s a scale and it’s not so black and white but many gray areas. If I had any “gray” area, I would have chosen to be straight!! But you can’t choose something that you have no natural capacity for. Since you say you chose to be straight, then I can’t really get you to relate to how I feel 100% towards only females and 0% towards males. So hmm, maybe instead the comparison would have to be saying you were forced to marry a crocodile (that’s gross enough, right?) Haha, this is just getting weird now. But I just want you to understand where I’m coming from in that I didn’t choose to be a lesbian and I can’t choose to be straight, just like you can’t choose to be attracted to crocodiles! (Forgive this totally strange example, but I had to pick something that I know you wouldn’t have capacity to feel romance towards.) It would be easy to “choose” to be straight if you like both males and females even one more than the other! But if not at all and only one then how? I prayed since I was 10 years old that God would heal me and went through the ex/gay therapy and church groups to try to change and not even a morsel of success, as in no new feelings towards men. There are thousands with this same experience. Just google ex-ex-gay. This is just something some people feel and God doesn’t seem to change it. Why? Then when God saved me from suicide, I prayed He would send me a Christian partner, and wether it be male or female, I would be faithful. I knew I was not called to be celibate and too lonely to be alone for life. God knew this. So after my prayer, The Lord sent me my partner who I have been with for almost 11 years and as I’ve told you before, we have grown in our relationship with God more than anything else. She is my best friend also and we were brought back together after going through Christian elementary school when we were young so I first knew of her at age 7. I had no clue of her orientation, and neither did she of me. But we met again as adults and helped each other spiritually and were best friends first. Our foundation is in Christ, and one cannot tell me that God has not blessed us because that would discount all He has done for us (and I am not referring to any physical blessings, but spiritual blessings with faithful answered prayers and loving peace and comfort.) We study the Word together and pray so many times a day together that people have made fun of us. But we really rely on The Lord and I have not felt called that I shouldn’t be with her, but rather the opposite. I’ve made a commitment to her and our bond is a blessing that only God could give, so this is why I find it difficult to imagine that God HATES our union when He has directly shown us the opposite! So it is by this personal testimony that it makes it hard to think the verses apply to all gays in all situations. I still read the idol worship into the context of Leviticus and Romans and Genesis is clearly gang-rape attempt like in Judges 19 ( where they were successful in their attempt.) Then the word commonly translated as homosexuals only means “man-bed” but doesn’t say who the man is in beds with. So that’s up for real debate even among those who still think homosexuality is a sin. It’s not fair to say “homosexuals” when that word includes both men and woman and those who might be single or promiscuous or coupled or married. “Man-bed” can’t mean female too. So using that word has misled many and caused so much damage. There are just too many other possibilities to seem fully clear to condemn all gays. Wow ok it’s really late now. So lastly; I know you have friends that are bisexual, liking both genders but choosing the same because of sex. This is not how it is for me or the multitudes of others who ONLY have romantic love attraction to the same gender despite genuine efforts to change. So speaking of these people only (like me), what are we supposed to do when God doesn’t change us? Despite not feeling that my individual relationship is inherently sinful, my many years of traditional teaching still makes me ask for forgiveness if it is… So I would trust that His perfect blood sacrifice for our sins and His grace through our faith is enough.
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        P.S. I was raised in a Baptist Church for most of my life, went to non-denominational Christian elementary and middle school, public for short time in high school, then a few more years at a Nazarene Christian High school. I’ve been to many denominations of churches and prefer non-denominational Bible-based. I also follow many pastoral sermons on the radio and online from various congregations. On a side note, I have a great love of end times Bible prophecy.

      • Angela says:
        July 26, 2015 at 11:01 am

        So if you don’t mind me asking Moanti are you and your partner going to get married or already? Also if you don’t mind be asking what do u say to people trying to promote polygamy because they think it’s the same

      • Lana says:
        July 26, 2015 at 1:04 am

        Hi again forgive me…. I write this But Disciple Paul and Jesus fight for Marriage monogamous man and woman only, and for sexuality inimacy only in that case too, or esle it is sin adutlery, or fornianction, very simple…. I mean for Christian OK? Civil i not interfere and God too i disagree civil marry same gedner because law of men cotnradcit god law but it is laso, not my problem….. Good bye. thank you.

      • Lana says:
        July 26, 2015 at 3:28 pm

        Hi thank you very much. Yes i study the book, to know what God say,about all in Bible…. Learn the good principles, values for life eternally with God. I am sorry i write last time, to help you? Argument about Law is wrong i find in the 1050…. Okay, i find clear, adultery,(cheating the wife or husband) is forbidden (sin) and also clear fornication. (pre-marital before the wedding…..) is forbidden. for Hebrews. (and Christians, because morality laws, not food or cult…). Who can say, this is not wirttten and not clear?

        Marriage is clear only man and woman, Jesus confirm too, and disciple Paul too male adn female only gender marry, god(blessed only…And monogamy too!!. Genders difference and importanc,e it have not adn never finish this life, the text you say is speaking, no distinction to anyorne gender or origin anymore, everybody can come (and welcome most!!!) to Salvation and God now, no more court of women, Greek, Jews to discriminate…. In the Temple of Jerusalem,.

        The other thing i read you, no more wedding in Heaven, but this not eliminate the gender importance and difference, and also not relevant to this side of, life with MArriage God-blessed only that way…. Then, Jesus resurection show Jesus keep his body, and gender, so…. Angels in the sky, no marriage in heaven, this is later. Not focus is given on it for this life, Marriage is still, male adnf emale, and gender iss till, fundation of this, complementarity…. Sorry but this is written that way, not my imagination….

        The enuch? I agree it mean the celibate for some reason, or another. From bith maybe hormonal problem, including the homosexual title cause no desire for opposite sex, no problem to compare and identify the same.. Done by men, celibate because heart broken (by woman) too much, or physically, catrated, the sexual organ yes… Done by self, is can be who mutilate the organ self…. Or who decide to serve the charity, better than, marriage with other gender individual, human person. But Jesus say the three classes of enuch (celibate) are not fit for Marriage god-blessed, yes but not say that same sex activity is OK for them because maybe no desire for opposite sex…. Nothing say that in the text and cotnext, bible and culture…. Can not draw the conclusion safe, to bridge the two situation together. You agree? Because it is clear…..

        Sexuality orientation it has nothing to do with God laws, they are absolute to men and women, Gopd create men and women only (sorry for the rare case of Hermaprodite, they are genetical anomaly according to the norm of male or female!!!) It is wrong to read with the new modern concept the Bible, it is right to read the modern with the bible principles…. Not the inverse, You know? Who say truth, God in bible breath spirit to write; or men (and women) in the world with enw concept, ideas…? For Christian no compromsie, only Bible is saying all needed for salvation and introducing the new in Bible is forbidden. Jesus say, must not remove or add anything from the law and prophecy…. The alw, food and cult, Disciple Paul said, abolished, but morality? Still apply…. Including, same gender sex, fair because also inclduing, close family and animal sex in the Bible context….

        I want conclude, Bible give principles it is not the Tribunal court, you know? Clsoe family sex it speak to men, Hebrew most ebcause they are leading the family and responsible for their women, the same God punish Adam, togetehr with Eve first sin, he was not careful to protect her from the temptation as her leader, man….. Man not close relation with the aunt, not mean woman with uncle ( or aunt same sex!!) is OK…. Yes or no?

        I like bible book because simple and i hate the complicated…. god speak to us, little children to educate not to confuse….. The whole things Pagans were doing, is different, Hebrew and Greekromans culture, but still, same gedner sexual activity is condemend, clearly…. God do not say, to Hebrew man, do not sleep with another man as one does with a woman (sexually) in the worship of idol…… The text god breathed to write Moses, do not limit in the worship of idol… This same gedner sexual activity. This you can only accept, sister….

        The Romans? I study a lot!!!

        Click to access Patrisitc_Interpretations_of_Romans_1_26.pdf

        this give old study some also beleive it is anal sex female and not same sex woman activity, but it do not hold together in the close study…. The word Disciple Paul likewise prove it is the lesbian sex…. I find Hub greek ὁμοίως http://biblehub.com/greek/omoio_s_3668.htm and it simply mean direct meaning, likewise, similarly, equally, to say, parallel…. i do like you…. wait…
        For this reason (Pagans, because they worsjhiped idols and not agree God bless the male adn female sex with creating babies and the msot, natural and necessary complementarity…) God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations (male and female sex) for those that are contrary to nature (???; and the men likewise gave up natural relations (male and female sex) with women and were consumed with passion for one another men committing shameless acts (those contrary to nature i write ???) with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
        The parallel is Disciple Paul draw, not me…. Sorry sister, Paul equatting the unnatural relations of? if Paul say unnatural, about man and woman anal sex, as you believe it how he can compare it similar to man and man anal sex? There is no mirror it is personal reading, interpetation…. not God breathed Spirit to Paul to dscribve this action and situation. But if Disciple Paul say unnatural, sexual activity woman wth woman, and sexual activity (pleasurable contact in the intimacy!!!) man with man, then the text make full sense to the end and show it is correct meaning Paul write from Spirit…. Can you see it? Please be honest with integrity, not the sensibility and understanding of you to lead your reading, study but surrender to Spirit… I am not a bad girl to hurt your feeling, but the truth is clear God Bible not use obscure meaning…

        I understand you are hurt and angry, but bible, condemn homosexual, mean, same-gender-sexual behavior not the peop;e doing… The good news of Jesus is, blood of Son Jesus can wash that sin now, why you fight this, is beyond me and make me sad, but it is your freedom…. Good luck with your lfie sister, ok? not hate me!!!

        Data yes pelase show me the Hermpahrodite i am curious… sister? Me…. I am young 16 and fight to know my attraction but i not think too much, not identify me with this, i let God set the rules, i love god lead….. god lead to bless only man and woman marriage, this is why i know, homosex is not god-blessed, simply…. Yes the Bible God do not say about homosexual relationship, not because they not exist in the past (Emperor Nero marry the same gender, Paul know that….) but it say negative of the homosexual, sexual behavior to engage same gender sex, clearly and not positive, not affirmative, sure…. And not restricted in the idol worship, or God would have clarify….

        The last, the Sodom city…. I read the men come to the man Lot house, and are first, okay, not angry mob to rape, they ask polite the request to Lot, not aggressive. can you make the men visit outside so we know them? but Lot already condemn their want as wicked, they wanted not to know for talking but to know sexual intiamcy with them, the homosexual sex with the two man , not knowing they are Angels God send to verify, downstairs (in the Earth) if they are really impious cities…. You get it? They are condemned in their want, before the violence to take by force…… It is the homosxual sex condmned wicked by Lot before the mob thing rape very crazy…. Why? Because Lot offer his virgin daugthers!!!! To stop the wicked sexual activity of same gedner wirth men in house, and accept, sacrifice his girls, i do not agree but he think it the lesser evil… How Lot know the men visit were angels? He not know too… How he know they are not homosexual oriented persons, men? He do not know but still conclude it is best to offer the daugthers…. The text show, Lot, man of God, was knowing, homosex is wicked, in this city… I can agree this is the promiscuous (lusting for sex pleasure) kind, sort of homosex condemned first, and of course the attempting to force rape. consensuality homosex is condemend in Levite, it do not say promsicuous or not and frankly, it is always promsichyous and lust because lust is negative word for a desire to get what is not meant to be, our property, to belong to us, to make, our joy…. I am tired now to write so much, and a little sad (not angry yet) you want to make the legal for homsoex inside the bible when it is not… but it is your life, i not interfere with the freedom and the privacy of others for my own sake, God teach me…… Give the treatment you want, to otehrs, yes? I not like other tell me i am wrong but if they are fellow Chrsitian this is the discipline from Spirit if they show me Bible book condemn me for my bad (wrong, inappropriate) behavior, and not them personally…. The Disciple open to be judged by other Disciple is god-blessed. but must judge with Justice only, fair with the ground of Bible book and God between the Disciple if there is argument…..

        Me i do not hate you sister buit i am a little bit tired about Shrine prostitution homosexual activty practice you chose to read only in historical cotnext and not in Bible context, when, where God was careful to breath spirit to Moses, defend Hebrew Levite in bible include the same gender sex along with close family and animal sex, not limit with title,to idol worship prazctice or you know?.The same must apply to other sex sin in the chapter…. And i tell you, animal sex probably the most problem for Hebrew, man far from their lady with the goats!!!! And woman with the goat too when the husband is away long time to cultivate the field!!!! The same close family was problem with the spiosue away from household, home and the same gender also a problem at the time Levite because Hebrew only come to claim the Promised Land (Canaan)…. I study the culture of the Hebrew too. the movie the brokeback mountain, they also are far without the lady, that is why it develop the same gedner attraction to get heat in the tent!!! I am sorry i disapprove and heart broken for the wife of the cowboy he cheat…. For man same my friend , boyfriend and you see? They were sharing the romantic and passionate in the movie, but still it is wrong because…? Because their wife cry and they were broken men, away from civilization to begin in the tent…. Also the father of one cowboy was hating the homsoex and it influence , condition the kid to support the homsoex, to oppose his father, yous ee…? Very intricate, deep, good movie but bad action, behavior, I am sorry i say my deeper feeling…. Okay, good night!

  104. Pingback: Clobber texts against gays: Leviticus 18:22 | Lay Reader's Book Reviews

  105. Lana says:
    July 27, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    Hello sorry I am curious… The Column of fire when the spirit come to the Christian why not any more? Aad The Catholic Mary ghost, Lourdes is this for real??? Have you gone there to see…? And to Jerusalem? I want to go… I want to understand…….. See my self! Sister please I ask you from bible Principle the column only please, the other i am only curious…. no problem if you do’nt know too… Good day for today. Thank you very much.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 28, 2015 at 4:23 am

      Hi Lana!
      Please let me know what verse you are referring to about columns of fire so I can properly respond. I only know of the pillar of fire in Exodus, but I’m wondering if you are referring to this:
      Acts 2
      “1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.”
      If this is what you were asking about, I will respond to this. If not, let me know. This was the very first time the Holy Spirit came into believers. So the dramatic appearance was fantastic and needed for people to see and witness it for the first time. It goes onto say that all the many who surrounded the house were from all different nations, but could understand the Disciples in their own native language and they were teaching and prophesying about Jesus. This first event got many curious that they could understand their words and they asked “what does it mean?” which drew them to want to know and follow the truth. But the mockers just thought they were drunk… So the mocking unbelievers couldn’t see or hear or understand the truth, but only those drawn in could understand. But I think you may be curious as to why such large displays of events don’t happen in the same way as it did then, as far as drastic physical signs such as fire-like tongues resting upon believers as it was in those days. I would have to say that I believe this is due to the absolute need for faith. If such things happened now, it would be seeing so visually a supernatural event that nearly everyone would believe without having to really have much faith. As we are told, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 10:1) Also Jesus said to Thomas who was in doubt until he saw Jesus face to face after His resurrection: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” So the faith of the ones who saw Jesus physically face to face had faith that He was the Messiah. But those of us that have not yet seen Jesus physically face to face have faith by our experience of things not seen, yet we choose to believe and know He is our salvation by what He has revealed to us after we had the faith to believe.

      Despite not physically seeing drastic displays that happened in the past (such as the parting of the Red Sea or Jesus walking on water), we believe in faith and this is the exact manner in which we are saved. By our faith we are saved through the grace of God by the mighty works of His Son by His death on the cross! But despite this, this faith is not blind, but in fact opens us up to see more than ever before prior to when we first believed.

      I feel we are coming upon a time on earth where end times signs are something visual to see and experience for everyone on the earth. So God is still working in visuals to a certain degree. But we can also know that just as the mockers who thought those filled with the Holy Spirit were only drunk, there will be unbelievers who despite seeing these things come to pass, will still not believe. Does that make sence? Please let me know more if this doesn’t answer your question. I really am happy to talk to you about these things and have this fellowship with you!

      Now concerning the Mary ghost of Lourdes…. This ghost appeared to one girl named Bernadette in a cave several times, spoke only 3 times, and did not speak of Jesus as far as I know. This truly makes me feel strange. I can’t say for sure if what she saw was real because I don’t know enough about this… But I do feel that there are some odd things about this from what I do know. Concerning her experience:
      “The Lady only spoke to me the third time. … She told me also that she did not promise to make me happy in this world, but in the next.”
      With all due respect, I do not think that Mary is the cause of our happiness, but rather she was the chosen woman to bear our Messiah. Yes she is to be highly respected, but she has no power to save us, ONLY Jesus. So this feels strange to me. Also concerning her experience:
      “The second time was the following Sunday. … Then I started to throw holy water in her direction, and at the same time I said that if she came from God she was to stay, but if not, she must go. She started to smile, and bowed … This was the second time.”
      We are instructed in the Holy Scriptures to do this concerning any spirits:
      “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.” (1 John 4:1-3).
      Now I don’t know everything concerning this story, but from what I have learned, Bernadette did not ask about Jesus of this spirit, but only that it had to go if it wasn’t from God. It only smiled at her and bowed said nothing more. Here’s the problem. Even the fallen angels are technically “from God” because He created them…. And we are told in Scripture “for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (1 Corinthians 11). So I am not saying that what this girl saw was not what she believed she saw because I don’t know enough information…. But from what I do know, I feel strange about it because she didn’t test this spirit properly and the only glory that has come from this experience seems to be glory to Mary, not Jesus. What do you feel about this?

      I have yet to go to Jerusalem, but would very much like to go there. But it would seem that we will be there soon enough without having to purchase a plane ticket, as the prophecies foretell this amazing word concerning this Holy place:
      “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.” Revelation 21:2-7.
      Of course this is about the NEW Jerusalem, but I’m pretty sure we will be happier with seeing this than the one that exists right now! 😉

      I hope this helped you and I hope you got my words earlier about the spiritual gifts. Thanks for bringing these things up to me. I crave fellowship with believers and not having to always focus on sin is nice. After all, He came so that we could be free of these things! I leave you with this tonight:
      “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4:8)
      Peace be with you sister.
      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      Reply
      • Lana says:
        July 29, 2015 at 4:33 am

        Hello yes i am asking about this Colums of fire for the Apostles (Disciples) when they receive the blessing of Spirit, and maybe, new language. Thank you very much i understand, it is discretion now….
        The lady Mary ghost, i am not sure me too, but she say right, God do not promise to give the partner, or happiness in this life, but endure suffering and eternal with God; life next for the obedient, and for the other, the eternal, suffering in lake of Fire… I am sorry i just repeat what is written. But I think demon ghost… Mary resurrect with all of us, when God want, after this life, so…. I feel very fear, this ghost is creepy, smile to the holy watter and bow!!! I dislike the cult of Catholic, Saint and Mary they are dead, can not interfere for us…. Yes, only Jesus still alive to help.
        Jerusalem… The war now dangerous to go, and also, the syndrome, do you know? https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jersynd.html I fear too, maybe crazy for week!! Thank you very much yes it is good to talk other, the sin… I conclude short to stop argument with me OK? God and Son Jesus and Paul know all, and Nero etc, but say, the different gender complimentary is requested absolutely and god-blessed man and woman monogamious from start to finish, and adultery, (cheating the wife for him, or husband for her) is wrong, and premarital (before engaged serious, and sincere) is wrong…. Fornication is the immorality sexual, including all in Levite, also homosex act i am so sorry but i read so much, to know the truth god give, even if i dislike it, i believe the scholar expert find the correct most…. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/03/28/bible-condemn-idolatrous-homosexual-practice-gangnon-lee-torn/ And myself, study, i find the same him; the command God give Hebrew is very few words, short and clear, not specify the limit about situation Shrine or age (boy slave)… And why, only one this sin, maybe limited Temple and no the others..? Animal sex not OK outside the Temple!!! Same, the other oens, so sorry but it is, only fair… And, right; so sorry!! I follow him say, the text defend child sacrifice, Moloch broad, even with narrow text, and it is udnerstand by all it do not mean, it is OK to burn (or priostitute!!!) the child to other false god not only Moloch, or even, to real God… Why, the other, broad (generality, globally) should be narrow…? Not make sense and not fair, you must accept, i say for you, me i accept because iw ant to obey the truth most… My study it match. SO i am fear for you if you not accept homosex act (not human person) is to be forgiven in this life and stop it (the sexuality practice….), but God not bless and not accept, not approve it is certain can not doubt it, because, Bible not give one positive about…. Simple, must chose, to believe Bible or man, or even your self… Dangerous, all. Only God is safe!!! Please stop argument with me yes… Talk other than, sin!! 🙂 Welcome, ok good bye for today, you not hate me sister i pray for you accept God lead to safety!!!

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 4, 2015 at 11:27 pm

        Hello Lana!
        It is great to hear from you again! I’m sorry it took me so long to respond! It’s been a busy week! I do not hate you at all so don’t ever worry about that! I enjoy talking to you, and although we might not agree on this one thing theologically, I’m sure we can agree on most things when it comes to the Gospel message and that the most important thing of all is that our salvation is found only through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus, and in that way, we are sisters in Christ! “Dismayed” means to feel distressed. I felt like you were distressed about the passages and worried that you weren’t good enough to have all of these gifts. I hope what I wrote to you helped you feel better about it and thanks for asking me, as it was a blessing to be of help!

        Before I go on, just as a warning, this comment to you is super long and practically a “mini-book” to you!!! Haha! So please read it when you have the time, and respond whenever you get a chance if you want to… But take your time. Thanks in advance for reading it! 🙂

        As far as the gay topic, I would also like to talk about other things with you too. I will just say a few more things in response to your last comments and then we can talk about anything else you want, okay? I totally understand that you feel convicted against homosexuality, and that’s fine and completely valid! I have no doubt that God has placed it on your heart that this is a sin to you. But what we must not fail to remember is that God truly does give us individual convictions in accordance to what our calling is in our life. Just as God assigns different Spiritual gifts and also assigns different roles in the body of Christ. A man might receive a word from The Lord that he shouldn’t go to the beach because women are only clothed in bathing suits which can be revealing. But if this man preaches to all Christians that they shouldn’t go to the beach because of the bathing suits of women, then he has just imposed his own personal conviction onto all men. Could it be that this man has a problem with lust and can’t handle being around women in bathing suits and this is why The Lord placed it upon his heart not to go to the beach? But there are Christian men who don’t struggle with a problem with lust and can have an innocent time at the beach without lusting after women. But the man has wrongfully declared it to all Christians that this is a sinful act for all, even though this is not a sin in and of itself. Likewise one might receive a word from The Lord that they should not go to anyone’s house who drinks alcohol with their dinner and then they go on to declare to all Christians that The Lord placed it on their heart that it’s sinful to do this. But this person may have been told this message from God for themselves because they have a problem with alcohol, but not all Christians have a problem with alcohol. So for the heterosexual who receives of word from The Lord that homosexuality is a sin, could it be that it would be a sin for them personally because God has created them to be with an opposite sex spouse? Not all Christians need to receive the same conviction aside from that which promotes love and casts out doing harm which is what everything in God’s moral commandments encompass. So not all Christians receive the same conviction regarding issues that don’t fall into these categories. We must admit that despite our differing convictions on the topic of how to interpret these verses, there is still not a verse that explicitly prohibits gay and lesbian monogamous committed life-long unions within the blueprint for God-centered marriage. So when it comes to this, we must be guided by God accordingly to what is personally received as conviction and is relevant for His will for our life.

        With that said, I’ve come across testimonies of gay Christians who do feel convicted that homosexuality is a sin to them, yet most of their stories have the similarity that they had engaged in promiscuity and/or sex addiction (and some had even been modern gay prostitutes)! Could it be that they have received this conviction from The Lord because they have a problem with promiscuity or sex addiction which would cause them to sin if they engaged in a same-sex relationship? They associate homosexuality as being the same as their promiscuity or sex addiction and attribute homosexuality as the targeted sin without separating these as different issues. But God knows our hearts and what we will do before we do it, so it wouldn’t be impossible to think that God has convicted them not to engage at all with the same gender (even in a monogamous union) because He knows they would or do have a problem with promiscuity or sex addiction and engaging at all would lead them to this. (So this could even count for those who have never engaged in gay sex but feel it’s wrong for them because God knows where it would lead them.) This does not mean that all homosexuals have a problem with promiscuity or sex addiction. For those that don’t, many feel called by God to find one partner to share their life with.

        Can you imagine if Paul had spoken to the churches guided by his own personal conviction without saying that it was his own? If he had, then he would have taught that all Christians must be single! But thank God he made known that this was a word from The Lord for him and not to all. Despite this, he still seemed biased towards being single as the best option, as it’s hard to not let personal biases shine through for any human. But I’m sure God doesn’t see the single believer as better than the married believer as Paul did, as He can use both equally as well! So although Paul received a word from The Lord that being single is the best, this is not a word from The Lord to all believers but to Paul and anyone else that shares his own personal conviction!

        So for the passages that appear to condemn homosexuality, it’s easy for the heterosexual to accept them as they are in our traditional modern understanding because those verses don’t apply to them personally. But for the one that is homosexual and studies diligently, they may receive a different personal conviction regarding these things. I have personally witnessed too many Christian gay and lesbian couples who are filled with the Holy Spirit to believe that God has rejected them. This just isn’t so and to deny this would be a danger. We must never attribute something as evil that we don’t understand. When Peter went for the first time and ate with the Gentiles and communed with them as believers, he even had a hard time accepting this as good and thought it was a sin before he was called by God to go to them. God had to tell him 3 times that what He had cleansed, he should no longer consider unclean or unholy. This was not just speaking of foods, but of people. God used the analogy of unclean foods to show Peter that this spoke of Gentiles, but that all foods and all people can be cleansed through Jesus and should no longer be considered unholy because God has cleansed them as believers. Peter went on to share that God showed him that he should never call a person unclean or unholy. Peter’s act was seen as an evil abomination to the Jews, but God had blessed this union of Jews and Gentiles that was previously seen as sinful, as they all equally shared in the belief of Christ!

        Before I go on, I must say a brief word about the tendency to recoil from associating the “homosexual verses” with shrine prostitution. What is rarely ever admitted is that the ancient Jews in Jerusalem were said by God Himself to be guilty of the acts which also occurred in Canaan (the land that Leviticus explicitly refers to in connection to Leviticus 18 and 20) and Jerusalem even doing worse than the acts of Sodom. Below are some excerpts from Ezekiel 16 that show that Israel ended up copying the practices of the Canaanites and became worse than it’s sister city Sodom. Notice that the idolatrous sex acts of shrine prostitution is one of the key things mentioned as to what they copied, which makes it highly more likely that the Leviticus verses were referring to that:

        3 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; 44 “Behold, everyone who uses proverbs will use this proverb about you: ‘Like mother, like daughter.’…17 You took the fine jewellery I gave you, the jewellery made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. 20“ ‘And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols. 24 You built a mound for yourself and made a pagan shrine in every public square. 25 At every street corner you built your pagan shrines and degraded your beauty, spreading your legs with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by…31 You build your pagan shrines on every street corner and your altars to idols in every square. In fact, you have been worse than a common prostitute, so eager for sin that you have not even demanded payment. 33 They give payment to common prostitutes: but you give your gifts to all your lovers, and hire them, that they may come to you on every side for your idolatrous whoredom. 45 You are the sister of your sisters. 46 Your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom. 47 You not only followed their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they.” -Ezekiel 16:3,44,17,20-21,24-25,31-33,45-47.

        So the point is that the Old Covenant law made a command against males with males in the context that the only male-male sex known at the time was that of the shrine prostitution that existed in Canaan and the violent sex practices that occurred in Sodom and other surrounding pagan lands. God did not want His people to fall into this type of idolatry or violence, so under the Old Covenant of the Law for the Jews, all male-male sex was prohibited during this time so that they wouldn’t even resemble the practices of the surrounding pagan nations. So the Jewish males were not supposed to be with males at all because of this resemblance to the pagan practices, but unfortunately Ezekiel made known that they ended up falling into this sexual idolatrous practice anyway and Judges 19 shows that the land of Gibeah (also part of Israel) fell into the practice of gang-rape.

        As a side note, although bestiality was practiced in idol worship as you mentioned, we know that this is still a sin because it causes harm. An animal cannot consent to sex so this is rape/molestation of an innocent creature. Just because something took place within idol worship does not mean that it is sinful outside of idol worship. Bestiality is still sinful, yes. But how about the type of food offered to idols? If the food had not been offered to idols, would the type of food itself be sinful? How about worshiping? If that worship is directed from the idols to God instead, is worshiping itself wrong?… So some things are harmful and sinful within idol worship, but outside of idol worship, they are not. Conversely, some things sinful in idol worship remain sinful on their own. So how can we know the difference? If something is done in worship of an idol, it is done for the sake of worshiping something other than God. But if something is done for a harmless, loving and fruitful purpose and one gives thanks to God, then we can not automatically assume it is a sin itself just because a similar activity took place within idol worship.

        Another reason for the command against male-male sex specifically was that procreation was commanded to the men during this time to the point that Onan was struck down dead from God for “pulling out” and spilling his seed onto the ground. (refer to Genesis 38:8-10.) So during this time under the Old Covenant, men had to spread their seed with many wives to bear many children.

        But now under the New Covenant we are no longer commanded to procreate and it is now only an option, not an explicit command in which disobeying would cause one to be considered sinning. Second, we went from God allowing incest in the beginning for procreation, to then prohibiting it as an abomination when enough genetic variation was on the earth. Then polygamy was acceptable for this procreation to continue filling the earth, until the New Covenant when Jesus commanded if one is to get married at all, it must be only monogamy. We see that every season of human history has it’s purpose and God’s requirements changed according to His population needs. So now in a world that is overpopulated, it’s not surprising that God would create those with whom procreation was not naturally available.

        Aside from no longer being required to procreate, we are also no longer bound by the obscure commands that were only for the Jews to be seen as set apart from those surrounding nations. Of course many argue that this Old Covenant command is against all homosexual relationships for today too, but Biblical context and the measure of what’s considered sin and not sin can be determined by the degree of harm it poses. So a God-centered life long monogamous commitment does not appear to fit this harming sin qualification as do all the other moral commands against sins that continue to be upheld due to their harming nature.

        I noticed in a previous comment that you said the Sodomites “asked nicely.” We can’t assume by written word alone how nicely or rudely they first asked where the angels were (before saying to bring them out so they can have sex with them), but we can easily see that their violence escalated quickly to threatening to do worse to Lot than the angels, and then moving to break down Lots door to get their way. So this kind of urgency to participate in any sexual act without the consent of the targeted victims (the angels) is and always must be seen as an act of attempted rape. If one says “no” and the other insists and goes to break down the door to complete their plans for sex, this is attempted rape in it’s most raw form. Note also that some believe that the Sodomites wanted to have the angels participate in their sexual orgy to their idols and didn’t care if they were willing participants or not. Either way, it’s an attempted gang-rape because they insisted despite them being unwilling. Even if the whole city was comprised of gay males (which is the most unlikely thing I can imagine), they were still trying to forcefully have sex against the will of the angels. Again, the crime here is attempted gang-rape no matter how you want to look at it. As a side note, don’t you find it strange that a heterosexual “family man” such as Lot would want to live in a city full of gays? Remember earlier that Abraham tried to get Lot to stay home, but he and his wife wanted to go to Sodom so badly. Why? Most likely it was because of the financial wealth of Sodom. But it’s doubtful Lot knew beforehand how violent these Sodomites were and in 1 Corinthians 9:10 it says that Lot was disturbed and bothered by Sodom’s “asélgeia.” This Greek word means:
        766 asélgeia (from aselgēs/”brutal”) – properly, violent spite which rejects restraint and indulges in lawlessness. [from Strongs Dictionary.]
        Gang-rape is most certainly brutal, violent, unrestrained and lawless. To rationalize Sodom as guilty of homosexual relationships, one would have to convince the reader that the residents of Sodom wanted to take the angels as their spouse and live out a life-long committed relationship with them. Truly this cannot be done just by the mere fact that the entire city wanted to have them sexually. So we cannot in good conscience use the story of Sodom to compare and condemn modern-day committed monogamous same-sex unions or to do so would be dishonest.

        Regarding Romans, I feel that the “likewise” does still make sense to be speaking about non-procreative anal sex. That is what could be the thing that’s “equal, in the same way, in like manner, etc.” because both the women and the men were accepting anal sex and the man is the only one capable to sexually penetrate. The biggest misconception of all is what’s “against nature” written in the text. The word usage in Romans 1 for “against nature” is not even “against” at all, but rather this:
        3844 pará (a preposition) – properly, close beside. 3844 /pará (“from closely alongside”) introduces someone (something) as very “close beside.” 3844 (pará) an emphatic “from,” means “from close beside” (“alongside”). It stresses nearness (closeness) which is often not conveyed in translation. 3844 (pará) is typically theologically significant, even when used as a prefix (i.e. in composition). 3844 (pará) usually adds the overtone, “from close beside.” [from Strongs Dictionary.]

        So when it says “AGAINST” or “CONTRARY” to nature, it’s actually “from close beside” or “next to” or “in close proximity” to nature…. How can something be in close proximity or next to nature?

        The word before this is:
        1519 eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, “motion into which” implying penetration. [from Strongs Dictionary.]

        Now the word after this is “physin” translated “nature” and Strongs Dictionary says it can also mean “of physical origin.”

        So with all this information when it says “pará ten eis physin,” what were the women doing? They were accepting the “(pará) penetration- which is the motion into which” (ten) “is” “(eis) in close proximity” to the “(physin) natural physical origin.” I can’t figure how else to say this without being very blunt, so forgive me. But if “nature” is the woman’s “natural physical origin,” as in her genitals, than the only physical thing “in close proximity” or “next to” her vagina would be the anus. So they were receiving penetration next to the natural procreative area, i.e. they were receiving anal sex. Remember that when it says pará, a women’s sexual organs cannot penetrate another woman’s sexual organs, so this does not make sense to compare as the thing that is “likewise” since the only thing that can be likewise compared is that the women received pará and the men received pará. Note that this is also supported by Romans 1:24 which nearly every translation says “they dishonored their bodies between themselves” which actually the literal translation is “dishonor the bodies of them INSIDE (Greek word “en”) each other.” So with all of this information pointing toward genital penetration, the only “like manner” that can be possible is that they all had anal sex (in the context of being idol worshipers which Paul clearly states, so this is why we assume this was done for their idol worship ceremonies.) So the “likewise” is in what they were doing with each other, not anything about their separate sexual orientation, which in a sexually descriptive sense, wouldn’t be “likewise” at all, but rather very different.

        Another fascinating thing to note is that the word translated into “women” or “females” is not a noun, but adjective. It is properly translated: thelus: “a woman with nursing breasts.” So this is talking about a type of female and strongly highlights her procreative ability which was altered for non-procreative sex. Speaking of altered, this is the translation of when it says the women “exchanged” (metallasso.) Metallasso literally means “altered,” not necessarily “exchanged.” So if the women altered sex with men, then this would make even more sense to be anal sex. Remember it never says “women with women” and we also find no other verses whatsoever that could even potentially be condemning lesbians in the entirety of the whole Bible. If this were what the Text was referring to, than it would be odd for Paul to condemn something that was not ever written in The Law, the Prophets or the Psalms. Never does he randomly condemn something that wasn’t first written before him as being a sinful offense, and when he does suggest something that’s outside of what’s written, Paul actually will say “this is from me, not The Lord.” (Let me know if you want such examples from Scripture.) So why just this one thing if that’s the case? But if he condemned these idol worshiping women who had anal sex in their worship, than this would be covered by the previous commands against female shrine prostitutes who were known for having this specific type of sex. (Again, remember that he brings all this up to show how they once knew God, but rebelled against Him and committed all of these offenses in the process.)

        But even if this is not specifically talking about sex in idol worship among the worshipers with shrine prostitutes, we also know culturally that this was a time of fulfilling physical sexual lusts to an extreme and they abandoned the monogamy (and sometimes the polygamy) of their marriages to do so. Even if they stayed with their spouse(s), they had abandoned having intercourse ONLY with them. The word translated into “abandoned” is aphiémi and can also be translated as “neglected.” So more specifically, “they neglected the marital use of the woman with nursing breasts.” So this does not indicate that they left women entirely, but instead neglected their marital commitment by adding non-procreative anal sex within these lustful ventures with others who were probably not their spouse. So these verses do not necessarily say they went from straight to gay.

        Also their sexual appetites of lust are strongly highlighted and are not at all descriptive of same-sex monogamous unions. So the lust of these acts are strongly condemned. As you mentioned too, Paul was well aware of Nero who had a public same-sex wedding twice to 2 different males, but Paul never said “do not marry” to the same gender. Nero would have been the perfect example on what not to do if the same-gender commitment/marriage was the targeted sin. But nothing in Romans mentions monogamous unions and/or marriage between the same gender.

        But looking at the chapter as a whole, this is where we get the possible link to idol worship. This is aside from cultural evidence, but just paying close attention to who Paul was talking about and not totally ignoring Biblical evidence of who he spoke about. But if we do want extra cultural evidence for it to not be talking about homosexuality as a whole, looking to the early church fathers who lived in Rome and spoke the original Koine Greek, we see they publicly made it known in their commentaries that Romans 1:26 was speaking of women having anal sex with men and NOT lesbian sex. This includes Aristides (in AD 126), Justin Martyr (around AD 150), Clement of Alexandria (around AD 200), Anastasios (around the mid 200s AD), and Augustine (around AD 380). Go here for more info about this: http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-likewise-in-romans-127-equate-gay-sex-with-lesbian-sex.html

        So if early church fathers who lived during and around this time of Paul who were native Greek speakers thought that Paul was talking about the women receiving heterosexual anal sex and not lesbian sex, then we should probably at least accept the possibility that they would know better of the meaning than our modern attempts at interpreting the foreign text through our modern eyes. With this said, relying on the early church fathers, we see that their native translation could not be condemning homosexuality as a whole as the modern tradition asserts. This tradition against all lesbians and gays came much later and Jesus warned the Pharisees multiple times about following man-made traditions (held as religious requirements) that produce an obstacle to God’s grace. For one who is innately gay or lesbian and can’t transform to become heterosexual (which would be required if it is the only acceptable romantic love to have), this anti-gay tradition produces an obstacle to God’s grace, as it removes gays and lesbians from the “whosoever” in John 3:16.

        Although some would say that it’s sinless to have gay attraction, but just a sin to have gay sex. In this they see a “loop-hole” for the celibate gay to not be guilty of sinning. But to that I say that Jesus warned that if a man looks at a woman in lust, he has already committed adultery with her in his own heart. So if mere sexual attraction and desire of someone can equal adultery (if married), than how can the gay person who has sexual attraction and desire be considered innocently sinless (in this area) if homosexuality is a sin? If homosexual sex is a sin, then the attraction towards homosexual sex must also be a sin, as sins of the mind are just as bad, as even Jesus Himself said that “anyone who hates his brother is a murderer.” So how can homosexual attraction be excusable as “not a sin” if homosexuality is a sin? This would seem like someone saying, “it is sinless to think about your friends spouse sexually, as long as you don’t have sex with them.” But Jesus says differently, that the thought is still just as bad and they would be guilty of adultery just for having the feeling of desire itself! But here’s where there’s a major problem with this… We were promised in Scripture that God would provide a way of escape from all sinful temptations so that we can endure them (refer to 1 Corinthians 10:13.) This doesn’t mean we won’t be tempted to sin, but God promised that He would provide a way of escape in each circumstance so that we wouldn’t be forced without a choice into committing the sin. But for homosexuality, there is no escape since all continue in their involuntary attractions without any provided way of escaping them. So there’s no way of escape for homosexuality which means there’s no way to endure it. We know that God is NOT a liar, so then why hasn’t He provided a way of escape from this if it is truly a sin? Doesn’t that seem not only unfair, but unBiblical? One must honestly consider why God has decided not to deliver them from these attractions even after a lifetime of prayer requests to do so. One can only conclude that there’s either nothing broken to fix, or God has created them as an object of condemnation and judgment. The only other option is that His grace is sufficient to still save us and He has allowed us to love how we were designed to love.

        I know you’re still young, but I’m sure you will notice throughout your life that you have no control whatsoever of exactly WHO you will be attracted to. If it hasn’t happened to you already, the next time you actually fall in love, just try for a moment to stop it. You’ll notice quite clearly that you can’t stop it by your own will. So why and how could God create people that had an inner design to only have attractions towards people that He has designated as “off-limits” in every circumstance? For the person that does have sexual desire towards their friends spouse, they can also have attraction to others who are not married and marry someone else instead, so there is a provided way of escape for them. Any heterosexual who has any attraction towards someone who is “off-limits” can have an alternative opportunity to be with someone who is deemed acceptable… But for the homosexual, this proves to be impossible, as there is no opportunity for them to romantically love outside of their own gender, so how can one endure this if they were not called to celibacy? So do you see how this makes this Bible verse ( 1 Corinthians 10:13) totally void in regards to homosexual attraction if homosexuality is a sin? In addition, Paul states “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them 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 with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8,9) For the homosexual, marrying the opposite gender will not fix this problem, as in fact they will still burn with passion towards the same gender. So what is the provided way out for them to only love and be faithful to a spouse whom they can adore both in body and in mind, unless they commit to one they have the capability to love and be faithful to (which could only be of the same gender)?

        You may argue that being gay isn’t inborn, but there is much evidence now for a biological cause. Although a gene hasn’t been found, biological correlations that show a common difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals have been uncovered that suggest that it’s linked to the amount of certain hormone levels that the baby was exposed to in the womb. They have even been able to produce animals born homosexual by injecting these same levels of hormones into the animal mothers wombs. So if science can make one gay by doing this, then how can it be by choice? Experiments have shown that gay males have the same density markers in their fingerprints as straight females, as well as significantly high likelihood to have a counter-clockwise whirl of hair at the top of their scalp (compared to heterosexual males with clockwise hair whirls), and a much higher likelihood than the straight population of being left-handed. (As a side note, I’m left-handed, my partner is left-handed and some of our lesbian and gay friends are left-handed.) Not only that, but there’s been found that gay males have different inner-ear structure compared to straight males, and this structure is more similar to straight females. These are all things determined in the womb. There’s much more biological similarities among gays as opposed to straights and you can read about them here in this detailed 7 page article (make sure to click to the next page to see all): http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/ The only thing I would have to disagree with in this article is the notion that only males have a sexual orientation, and females have only a sexual preference. Although there may be more females that are willing to be with men, I can say from my own personal experience and that of other lesbians I know that have never had any attraction to men even when they tried, so not all females have a “fluid” preference.

        Also as a side note, there’s much more than just hermaphrodites that make one different from the average male or female. God created them male and female in the beginning, but now we see many different births of humans that don’t perfectly fit into this category. Many are born physically looking like one gender but have the chromosomes of the opposite gender, so they are literally genetically male but look female (or vise-versa.) And even some have the chromosomes of both genders but physically look like only one but sometimes androgynous (having physical characteristics of both genders.) Then there’s also those that physically appear one gender, but are found during puberty to be the opposite gender (an example of one of these types is a baby born looking like a boy, but then at puberty getting a period and discovering that what appeared as testicles are actually ovaries and what appeared as a penis was an overgrown clitoris!) Here’s a chart of frequency of all of these types of people (called “intersex”) but you can individually look up the different conditions by the names listed if you want to know more: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

        Furthermore, in the animal world, there are many creatures that have hermaphroditism on a normal basis, but even more interesting, there are thousands of animal species identified as having gay sex and even pairing for life in a gay union, so this is often found in nature. The physical structure of the brain of a gay male is like a straight female and the physical structure of lesbian brain is like a straight males brain. http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html In the other article I gave you before this one, they show that the male sheep that sexually partnered with males also had the same physical brain structural difference as gay humans. So there’s for sure a biological cause to the true homosexual (not counting those people who are experimenting with sex for pleasure or from lack of access to the opposite sex.) So with this said, how can we condemn someone physically born with this as being sinful for wanting to spend their life with who God physically designed them to want to spend their life with?

        But going back to Scripture, I also have another issue with Romans that I really don’t understand, if it is talking about all gay people…. For a moment, let’s assume that it is against all gays and lesbians. Than here’s what we must conclude. Verses 1:18-20 says these people knew God. Verses 22-23 says they decided to reject God and believe and worship idols instead of God. But then we have a very curious thing happen in verses 24-25. It says because they rejected God and worshiped idols instead of God, “THEREFORE God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among (inside) themselves, BECAUSE they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator..” So because they rejected God and severed idols instead of God, He gave them over to become gays and lesbians? Was this some kind of curse or punishment for choosing idolatry? Even after verses 26,27, it says again: “And BECAUSE they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”
        This order of reasoning seems to go like this:
        1st-Romans knew God
        2nd-Romans rejected God
        3rd-Romans worship idols instead of God
        4th-Because of this, God gave the Romans up to become gay?

        So if homosexuality is the target sin, then the Bible would tell us that it is a direct result caused by rejecting God. So if this is the case, then we should expect that ALL gays and lesbians are gay and lesbian because they rejected God so then God made them homosexuals. I’ll get back to this idea in a moment…

        But first, let’s see what else we know of these people… Verses 29-32 describe:
        “29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

        Verse 32 is particularly important because it says that these people approve of all of these acts within themselves and give approval to others of all these acts. So now let’s see if this describes gays and lesbians that are in a monogamous life-long union. Better yet, let’s see if this could describe any Christian (straight or gay):
        1) approve and practice all manner of unrighteousness
        2) approve and practice all manner of evil
        3) approve and practice coveting
        4) approve and practice envy
        5) approve and practice murder
        6) approve and practice strife
        7) approve and practice deceit
        8) approve and practice of maliciousness
        9) approve and practice gossip
        10) approve and practice slander
        11) approve and practice being haters of God
        12) approve and practice insolence
        13) approve and practice being haughty
        14) approve and practice being boastful
        15) approve and practice being inventors of evil
        16) approve and practice being disobedient to parents
        17) approve and practice being foolish
        18) approve and practice being faithless
        19) approve and practice being heartless
        20) approve and practice being ruthless
        When we look at everything that these people are being accused of, we see that this could not ever describe a Christian (wether straight or gay.) Especially that all these people in Romans are faithless God-haters who reject Him for idols. How can one ever say that a Christian (straight or gay) is faithless or hates God or worships idols instead of God? Of course we may all be guilty of committing SOME of these lesser things on the list at one time or another, but approve of any of them? Never!!! How could we?!

        Now looking at all these things on the list, we can see that every single one of them causes harm. Sin truly equals doing harm, as we are told time and time again in Scripture. Likewise we see in Scripture that acting in a manner of love negates sin. But now compare all of these harmful things listed above with 2 genuine Christian believers who are under the grace of Christ who love each other and commit to follow God together in a life-long monogamous covenant. Is this inherently harming to ones self or to another? Can love and commitment itself really be a sin when sin equals harm and love negates sin? Or can it only be a sin when we decide to call it a sin, despite it not being in line with any other defined sins which does harm to self and others.

        I know you’ve told me several stories of harm that were done that involved gay acts…. But notice that these acts were not only inherently lustful and selfish, but they were harming because they damaged the heterosexual partner who was left. This is a sin. But had these people not gone against their natural affections in the first place and not tried to be with the opposite sex first, there would have been no harm to these heterosexual partners who were left because they would have never been with them in the first place to end up hurting them. And to be honest, it was by our societies encouragement of “heterosexual marriage only” that led them to try to be with the opposite sex, but if one is gay and always is gay, then they shouldn’t harm a straight partner by being with someone they can’t express their love towards or it could end in harm.

        As I said before, there are bisexuals that can have capacity to love both males and females, but when you gay or lesbian, you only have capacity to love the same gender in that way only and really shouldn’t be with someone of the opposite gender if they will eventually leave them for the same. So to avoid harm, wouldn’t it be better to just be with who you know that you can love as a suitable partner (unless one is called to celibacy)?

        But also one needs to see that there is a clear difference between committing a homosexual sex act and being homosexual. Having gay sex doesn’t make someone gay any more than having straight sex makes someone straight. When men are away from women (such as in prison) and perform sexual acts together, this may be gay sex acts, but they have not “turned gay.” Sexual orientation is much more about who you have the capacity to have romantic affection towards and capacity to fall in love with. Sex is sex and when it’s all about sex only, it is not about love, but lust. So any circumstance in which you hear about such an act, this does not mean it’s an example about “gay people.”

        So with all this info, Romans doesn’t seem to talk about gays or lesbians, but rather people who knew God, but rejected Him for all manner of harmful evil (including lustful sexual sins which exalted and gave praise to their idol gods.) God gave them over to commit this because they rejected Him first. Now looking to someone like me and many others like me, we grew up and were raised knowing God and embraced to love, follow, and believe in Him. So we can’t be “God haters” or “faithless” or approve of any of the other vile sins of harm listed in Romans 1. This just doesn’t describe us at all so we don’t relate to how it could be about us. The Romans committed these sexual acts as a direct result of giving up God and then God gave them up. But for the Christian who happens to have a gay orientation, we have not given up God nor has He given up us! Do you see what I mean at all in how this is different? So if Romans condemns all homosexuality, then homosexuality is a direct result of rejecting God. But as gay Christians, we have embraced God and are not rejected by Him. So this simply can’t be talking about all homosexuals or we would never find even one gay person who loves God!

        Considering all of this, the saddest thing of all is that the hatred towards gays has caused many to run from God because of the Christians who condemn them as unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven. This is a direct attack on who they are as human beings and an attack on an immutable characteristic that can’t be changed after birth, not simply a condemnation of a particular behavior. This alone has caused many gays and lesbians to flee from the church because they are rejected to such a high degree for being inherently evil. This is truly bad spiritual fruit, as anything that causes an entire group of people to feel unworthy of the salvation of Christ should not be promoted. How can we possibly justify this as good? Forgive me, but I just truly don’t understand. Thankfully despite this, there are now a growing number of gays and lesbians that are accepting the Gospel message and this is at least partly due to the alternative translation of these passages that shows that the Bible might not be condemning of all homosexuality. So if people are brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ due to this message, than how can we blatantly condemn it as evil?

        We really can only live with what we have been given. As I’ve heard it said, ears were naturally created for hearing. But if one is deaf, they can not use their ears to bring in information and communicate. So for the deaf person, they may have to use sign language to communicate. But our hands were not naturally created to be the exclusive form of communication. So should the deaf person not use sign language since their hands weren’t created for this? In the same way, if the homosexual lacks the natural ability to love the opposite gender, should they be banned from expressing love the only way they know how? I would assert that expressing love is better than suppressing love just as allowing the deaf person to use sign language is better than condemning them to a life of silence and isolation. It might not be the norm, but I can’t imagine that God has created people with this ability to love without the allowance of ever expressing it. But this is my personal conviction.

        A quick word now about the healings I told you about. First I am sad to hear about your father and I’m truly sorry that you had to go through losing him to cancer! 😦 When did this happen? How old were you? I’ve not lost a parent yet thank God, but have lost a best friend to cancer and family members so it’s very sad. But in regards to what happened to me with the healings, this was and is completely by the power of God, not by my own will to live. I felt like many times giving up in fact, and I accepted that I might not make it and I was okay with that. But God kept me around for a reason and He sustained me much longer than any person in that exact predicament should have been able to sustain. So we must give credit where credit is due, and all glory must be given to God lest we try to give glory to myself by my own will! So I did not will myself to make it through. I understand what you are saying that people can seemingly survive longer by holding on and having the attitude of wanting to be alive, but in my case, I witnessed physical miracles that happened that should not be physically possible and they were only done by the laying of hands in prayer by the power of the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. For this, I can only give glory to God, not myself, nor my partner who prayed. No such power could have been received if it hadn’t of first been given by the Lord Himself as a gift through the Holy Spirit. And this makes me wonder, if God chooses to give the Holy Spirit to lesbians in a lesbian relationship, than does He accept them as they are? This is no manner of proof, but it is interesting none the less. Regarding the Gentiles in Acts 15:8, “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.” So with the Holy Spirit inside of us, we at least know that we are not banned from being a Christian for being gay. And thinking back to the Romans passage, we also weren’t abandoned by God like those described. He shows His love and power in a very personal way to us, so this should say something…

        Now back to the ghost of Mary story, I also feel that it’s a strange thing and I don’t think it was good either. I noticed that you believe that we are dead in the ground until the day of resurrection. This is another controversial topic among Christians. The majority out here in the U.S. believe that we are immediately taken into God’s presence at the moment of death, and they might quote “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” This is stated so much that I thought it was Scripture. But upon closer examination, Paul actually just said he would rather be absent from the body and be present with the Lord. So like your view, it could just be referring to when they are finally resurrected. Also people quote Jesus on the cross saying to the criminal who believed in faith, “truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” They say Jesus said “today” so it must be immediate. But this is a matter of placing a comma ( , ) in one place which gives emphasis on one word. But there were no commas in the Scripture originally. Had the translators written “truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise,” we would clearly just see Jesus making a proclamation on that day. But Christians fight amongst themselves on this meaning and as I said before, the majority out here think we go up to God immediately, so they would believe all the dead are already with Christ in Heaven right this moment. But with your view, I think you could be correct, but there is at least one exception. Biblically it seems that we do just die and then rise again later at the same time. The dead in Christ do rise first, but it says “with a shout” they rise, and it seems they go up first, then those of us who are alive and remain catch up to them in the clouds on that day. But here’s the exception (if it’s not all immediate): we do at least know for sure that there are some that go be with the Lord right away, because Revelation talks about the souls who had been beheaded and killed for the Testimony of Jesus and they are in Heaven talking to God while the tribulation on earth is still going on. So they are at least already there. So who knows. Either way, it seems there’s a lot of things accepted by the majority as Biblical fact when there’s actually more than one way to look at them… I guess we will know when we get there! 🙂

        The Jerusalem syndrome is quite interesting. I saw a show once that showed a man who went on a trip to Jerusalem and suddenly dressed up like a Biblical character and ended up staying there walking around. I also read many suddenly believe they are the messiah! Very strange!

        Ok well I just wrote so long so I’ll stop here! Haha! Thanks for reading all of this when you get a chance! You’re in my prayers!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Lana says:
        August 5, 2015 at 8:38 am

        Hi sister, thank youn i read,you long yes….. Sorry you should, write, to email Scholar expert, for this debate, argument; Me not interested…. Simple, God bless only man with woman sexuality within, the committed promise to stay together, and this is the basis, for the ruling out of, sex sins God decided to be wrong, you and me not get to chose right and wrong is absolute for Chrisitan, not relative to the person opinion…
        You see other way, you are risk, your eternal life for bad thing, this seeking sensual love of other person of, same sex; gender, is sinful temptation and acting it is sin, clearly…
        You on your own,if you go, pursuing this and you have nothing to prove with Bible on hands, nothing convincing, not even one little word support God say to homosex behavior, that is,100% sure the truth and reality, of the propaganda homosexual theology, it fail because it is a lie…
        I give you, me try so much, to help, but you do what you want, okay… http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-is-homosexuality-wrong and here most truth http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-idol-behind-same-sex-desires it is the narcissic nature of our human sinful heart , expressed in the homosex behavior among other sins but this one, in particular, clearly the most as dsiciple; Paul say, replace God appointed for human opinion and sensibility in spite of evidence infront and under our nose of the truth God create woman for man,and complementary, all oppose this are , deceived by the devil, sure … idolatry in homosex is in the root, and it mean, self worship, yes; idolatry of yourself, and the false thelogy you create and maintain; to justify your behavior in the end that you must understand if you want,free from this sinful temptations to same sex, lust….
        Is in your capacity, if you hold on Spirit, god promsie to help endure, any temptation… I pray for you, that way!! I stop comment for now, i feel angry i maybe write more, about, other subject but only if i am sure you finish, to defend sin, i hate.. not proper, for Chrisitian to advocate sin when God say it clear,;Really wrong to dispute God word, when it is gracious offer, i not understand bad will and yes, i hate this attitude. Sinners, we all are but sinners who do not want be saved? Not agree their behavior offend God when God say it does.?? Then die in their sin, as they chose. and sorry,to say, also deserve;; it is only fair, justice by God authority to lead, decide what is right or wrong for the human children… Thank you very much. i am sorry too… okay… Farewell to you.. Take care, most!!

      • Lana says:
        August 5, 2015 at 11:08 am

        Hello; i write comment, because really, wrong…. You write, to me We must admit that despite our differing convictions on the topic of how to interpret these verses, there is still not a verse that explicitly prohibits gay and lesbian monogamous committed life-long unions within the blueprint for God-centered marriage. So when it comes to this, we must be guided by God accordingly to what is personally received as conviction and is relevant for His will for our life. Not. When Jesus say, affirming God created us male and female, and bless this union it already do set the God-blessed Marriage to be just that and exclude “same sex marriage” by definition, The same i say the sky is blue today, i exclude by definition the sky is grey or yellow or purple; When you or me or another see ways, around, then that person is not a good moral person because opposing what God say, clearly for the good of all; together; sorry i say, and stop, finish, argument forever with me about some homosex behavior acceptable, or you come with the God Bible verses stating it, or i never comment again if you come without the God bible evidence to support, only your bad opinion…. Good bye.

  106. Lana says:
    July 27, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    I feel sad, I read The son Jesus say we will also do the same Miracles and more, mean, to heal the sick with touch and to raising the dead, and like him to walking on the water…. ? If me can not it mean i am not, good enough ? From God do not bless me with that capacity? I don’t care to walk in on the water but i care to heal the sick me too. 😦

    Reply
  107. Lana says:
    July 27, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    The Great Commission
    …17″These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

    I don’t care for poison of snakes but you see? lay hands on the sick, how?

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      July 27, 2015 at 6:27 pm

      Dear Lana,
      Please do not be dismayed! This is one of the things I’ve been trying to explain to you, so thank God you were led to bring it up!My point before was that God uses us as individuals, but not all have the same callings and gifts. He appoints us in different ways, and we all have a different part to play in the body of Christ, but not all the same convictions. God uses all kinds to bring glory to Him to magnify His grace, and when it comes to the Spiritual gifts, we are given different ones as individuals depending on His appointment, and although different, it does all come from the same Spirit. Please read this in full and may it encourage your soul and not worry you! (I will write you more soon but wanted you to see this verse ASAP to encourage you! I am praying this helps!)
      1 Corinthians 12….
      12 Now concerning spiritual gifts,brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

      4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

      One Body with Many Members
      12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

      14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

      21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

      27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

      And I will show you a still more excellent way.

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        July 27, 2015 at 7:45 pm

        So I hope that verse was encouragement to your soul, and may you not feel dismayed that you don’t have a particular gift. We were not promised all the gifts into one person, only that all gifts would be given out according to God’s Will for the individual life so that all can work together as one body in Christ. So some may have the gift of healing, another the gift of wisdom, and yet again, another with the gift of interpretation. But this does not mean that every Christian will have every gift, but that all Christians as a whole will have these individual gifts distributed among them. All are used for His glory. So you do have a gift or gifts given to you, but should pray that God reveals which gift He has given to you so you can use it for His glory!

        My partner does have the gift of healing when she lays her hands in prayer. There were many times in the past I could have died due to a severe medical condition and couldn’t get the needed operation for 3 years due to lack of money. This condition caused many times where I was hours away from death when it took hold of me but every time this would happen, she would lay her hands in prayer, Bible verses about healing would come into her mind to minister to me and she would proclaim the healing in the name of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach (“Jesus the Messiah” in Hebrew) and I would always recover and all the excruciating pain and sickness would leave me! When I finally got the operation, the surgeons and doctors said most don’t survive past 6 months to a year with this specific condition without emergency medical intervention because my lower organs would become strangulated and cut off all oxygen to sustain them for days on end, and when this happens, most do not have them retract back into the body to be okay without being cut open to fix it. But her prayers and gift of healing sustained me through these life-threatening events and we give ALL GLORY TO GOD!!!

        Although God didn’t choose for this condition to fully go away on its own without finally getting the operation, He helped show His power over and over again for years by holding me together for much longer than I should have been able to since most would have required emergency surgery the first time the severe strangulation happened, and this organ strangulation occurred in the most dangerous area literally hundreds of times and every time God would release it after it was severely “stuck” for critical periods and showed all the symptoms of being about ready to explode! So I thank God for helping me survive through all of these things! I feel he kept me with this problem for those years rather than fully bind up my body without an operation so that He could show His power of healing many times rather than just once! So He always has a plan in our sufferings and this is why we can rejoice through our problems because He will always provide!

        I have also felt envious of my partner having such an amazing healing gift from God, but my gift of helping is also a gift given by the Spirit, and all of these gifts are given to work together in the full body of Christ. Note also that there are more gifts that are mentioned in the Bible that are not in this one verse I showed you. One is the gift of celibacy, which I know that I do not have. (Not all are miraculous gifts.) Some Christians do have multiple gifts, but others only one. But the distribution is up to God in how He uses us to touch different individuals and populations.

        So when you see a verse that speaks of these things, know that this is not referring to every single believer, but that some have a particular gift and others another type. I’ve got to go for now, but will write more to you later when I can!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

  108. Lana says:
    July 29, 2015 at 4:46 am

    Hi sister dismayed mean, ? Sad,? Thank you very much i udnerstand, and not jealous, not envy then, too much.. I try, OK. am sorry you have problem, with money, and health and your partner, sorry, i must say friend of you because Spirit inside me feel hurt to say the name same, god-blessed Marriage, but i like she help you with hands in prayers…. Yes not only ehr have but YOU too, sister if you no have the will you will not heal…. I know God do not want to do anything with us without, our, will, cooperative, Very sure!! My papa dies, quickly, he not want to live, cancer he had, and ….. Okay…. You see the will is crucial in the person, direction of life, and must rely on infleucne of Spirit only, not the world…. I know the fight is spirit of the world , and Spirit, I want obey Spirit for me… And for you, i pray too!!! See you in new Jerusaliem? Yes!!! Good bye to you take care the most. Thank you.

    Reply
  109. Gary says:
    August 5, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Moanti,

    Your very long comment to Lana on august 4 at 11:27 was briliant, just brilliant!

    Reply
    • Lana says:
      August 6, 2015 at 9:51 am

      Hello sister sorry i comment last about this, i am dilligent to study all you say… I find the intersexual, hermaphreudite, there is no clear exact science data about who have fully functional, two sexes in one person from birth,… What you link record is listing the dysfunction and the malformation of the sexual organs or chromosomes in many catergories, this is unfortunate, but individuals victim of this are not, can not qualify as actual androgyne, hermaphreudite because very likely extremely low possiblity of this happening, for a person to possess both sexual organs working, on any reasonable; stable basis to state it a fact…. Can not use this data and situation; as any relevant argument about God making them that way; apart from their infortunate medical condition; for the evidence of the existence of a third sex, gender regrouping both does not exist as verifiable and reproducable reality,exact, science, fact is the fair and reasonable conclusion.
      Next, the lenght you speak about para physin annoyed me because this is foreign to me, but i study,it today and i find, bad the same you knew already about, what i catch you, using falsely, the God word from disciple Paul revealing the action from God; Christ death for us; after Paul revealed by Spirit; “no male and no female in Christ” but you know and i know in truth, in fact this only refer to the veil of the Temple of Jerusalem tearing, after Son Jesus dies; and now, there is no more only the high Priest to come near God, and the Court of Gentile, or Jews, or Women;, to separate in groups, social classes; no distinction anymore now to approach God, all can now are welcome without restriction of gender or status, race, etc; You admitted to me you knew that was the context, the truth of this passage but you was still, to using it outside cotnext and giving it a meaning not in the text, you wanted to add.. I find this, dishonest, really wrong; I am lucky so much because i have the beautiful illustrated Bible book, i knew the Temple had courts of Gentiles, Jews, Women, etc; and the veil cut in half when Christ dies for us… 😦 If id di not have that knwoeldge, i maybe have falsely believe you; if i did not know and was the gullible person; reader your use of this sentence oput of cotnext and its real Biblicallly meaning; you used; to try to abolish gender distinction,and this what you tried to do against the truth….To, support your argument favorable to same gender sexuality and , “marriage”, even knowing it was only speaking of the Temple of Jerusalem,…
      The other time, then this, again, i fidn you use, wrongly; yesterday you are lying again, to speak; talk of Romans 1 you want it do not talk of lesbianity acton and write long and hard, with, the foreign language to be convincing about it that is unnatural is anal sex, not lesbian sex…. Well, i study today and same, you know the truth but you not admit yet, and cover it with lies as you want, to support your argument… You will to read this please? i copy the text, to paste…
      Paul uses a common Jewish and Greco-Roman designation for homosexual sex: “against nature” (or “unnatural”—para physin). This phrase was used quite frequently by certain moral philosophers and Hellenistic Jews to refer to various types of homosexual sex: pederasty, lesbian sex, consensual homosexual acts, etc. and Paul simply condemns homosexual sex by using the broad umbrella phrase para physin (“against nature”) without further qualification. All attempts to smuggle in such qualifications are unconvincing. Yes unconvicning most i copy from http://facultyblog.eternitybiblecollege.com/2013/11/does-romans-1-only-prohibit-illicit-same-sex-activity/#.VcN90ybtmko
      And further, i already study, the early Church fathers i post before… Only two or three person record write something believe this one interpetation of the two main currents of the time; either heterosex anal sex or lesbian sex, is the unnatural relation women are doing in disciple Paul Romans 1:26; that you forward; Also, Clement of Alexandria, was not supportive of your view, by the way… And a person named John Chrysostom too that was not the unanymous belief as you are presenting it, to me, i am not a fool to be deceived without checking the validity of the source… I post ago already, this article from Scholar expert and study very well; me too here http://people.brandeis.edu/~brooten/Articles/Patrisitc_Interpretations_of_Romans_1_26.pdf and this woman, expert Scholar also state, the truth about lesbian sex is what si unnatural and is being adressed by the words para physin to be normally and correctly, properlu understood by the culture in Paul’s time, read i copy her words; the type of sexual relations engaged in by women most often called “contrary to nature” (para physin) in the Roman world is sexual relations between women….. source https://books.google.fr/books?id=7846YJwlUV0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bernadette+Brooten&hl=en&ei=vmzGS8n2DYG88gbzoqTcDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=snippet&q=para&f=false page 251 …. Proof, again, you use words outside their original context and add a meaning out of your own, imagination to forward your views, this is dihonest and really deceptive to readers, i hate this…. So me am not blind to your attempts, you twist around with language, really wrong and not honrst, but I understand and i know, you are defending your interest to keep your lesbian behavior and not want it to be, the sin, God says it is in Bible,… Well, i tell you, for helping you , God call to holienss, everyone, no special cases; each person to fight the sin within themself, not fight the flesh and bblood or the sin in other person, to each their own task to deal with sin; this is fair! Also LEvite is broad, and all homsoexual sex is against the way God created us, as complementary male and female if you lvoe Gopd, you will aknwoeldge this is the truth and keep holding it, but fot hat you will have to suffer and let go of your lesbiansity,; your chocie, freedom to chsoe…. But arguing with me, demontate your superior knowledge if language that not happen anymore with me, so you keep your arguement, dispute the good God law, away from me, please, be respectful, of me, i not itnerested and also struggle occasionaly with same gender temtpation to fight, so you stop to tempt with devila dvocate theories, you build for yourself,; i ask you please… Me not want debate, you started, and you can see i finish, conclude saying, you have twice; manipulate words, language to see fit your sin,and avoid the Bible say all homsoexual sex is wrong and sinful ebcause it violate and transgress, the Go design of our bodies and human nature as God created it, you deal with this, i understand you grow with your condition and not beelvie it is si_nful, homosex but me remind you, you only knwo your experience and can not say a word about male homosex because differentt and also other woemn, lesbianity are each eevry person a different situation, unique to everyone… So you want to debate, i direct you to email the expert scholar, because nothing brilliant in abusing language, to prove nothing but justify bad sin agaisnt God creation harmony;, onyl obscure the trtuh of God creating us, with specific and comeplimentary gender you must learn that or you risk to stay and to; die in your sin, i am sorry to say… Slavation can not earn it with our own, works, yes but wwe can lsoe it if we are among, the oens, unrepentant sinenrs,a nd all sexual sin, outside God ordaiend MArriage of man and woman will not inherit the Kingdom, this siw ritten plain and simple, so iw arn you with love… Sister.. That is my conclusion, defintiive about your speak on this topic, please finish…. I ask you, pelase read me but i not tolerate you argue with me, because you have eben using, fasle methods, false teaching, i catch you twice and i stop trusting your reliability on thsi toipic, it is finish…. But other topic, welcome, but that, if you think to advocate again to me, homseoxual behavior? no more.i do not allow , my brain not a game for you to play and wash with, propaganda supportive of this sin… I hate it so much because i like you and i see it, have its, hold on you but me, i am only sinner and i cry, for God help, i urging you to do same, and grow in God’s love, mercy to save… I read a person, say, yes, God love all,and give blessing, even to sinner, the same, the sun wake and the rain fall on everyone, you know? Jesus will be caring and holding hands, uncondituionally of all sinenrs but in the end, the door will shut to thsoe who did not repent in time, Son Jesus will say, i never knew you who practice, immorality… I pray you and me, or another, not be one of them! You can respond to this but you make it short and only to apologize, if you argue, dispute me about what i find, you lied, or again, advocate homsoex bhavior to me you not read me again,I am cool and kind person, poltie, but i hate leis, and evil, and i must protect me from false teaching, i find you write,not honest with your use of language to prove your points, in favor of your own sin you not recognize sin and not want let go and repent, but, why you not active to spread the word in favor of God offering Salvation through Jesus, even for homosexual sin, this is the correct Gospel you should, know and embrace and forward here on; you blog :(… i am sorry to say, and hurt, but imagine the damage if i am gullible and follow you and not Christ…? Good bye……. Okay. Take care, most!! Me i not hate you, i hate only wrong, evil, sin behavior, action i forgive you, but please, respect me too;… Not hate me. Right value mroe than epace, this why i care to comment last about this problem. Now, finish. Take care….. I pray for you and me and all living!!

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 6, 2015 at 4:27 pm

        Hi Lana,
        I already wrote you, but was busy and did not get to send it. So I will say a few things first before copying my original comment to you. I’m sorry but you give me no choice but to have to defend myself. The link you provided quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying that the women received anal sex in Romans 1:26, so you misread this to think he didn’t say it. It was the author of the article that was disputing his claim. You defend the context of “no longer male and female,” but do not want to see the context of any of the verses that you see against gays. When the temple shroud ripped, this showed that we are all EQUAL in the site of God and can come to Him without separation. This is no lie. When it says we are no longer male and female, it still applies that we are no longer seen as separated as we were before so I don’t see this as any deception whatsoever to show our gender equality to God. We can use Bible verses for multiple and personal application and this is what spoke to my heart and I was not at all deceiving by sharing what verse was placed upon my heart regarding this when I wrote it down. So I’m sorry you see it as a “lie.” We also know that there are no marriages in the New Creation as we are like the angels in Heaven. So if gender is not important in the New perfect Creation, than why must it be a damning thing to see each other without such an importance on gender? Also the Greek phrase translated into “against nature” (para physin) is only used one other time in the Bible in Romans 11:24 and guess what? It’s referring to US as Gentiles (not the Jews) as being “against nature.” Despite us being against nature, we were grafted into the Olive tree to receive salvation, yet the Jews are considered the “natural branches.” So being “against nature” cannot be inherently sinful if God still accepts us in, even though we were not originally part of this. Also, para physin cannot be talking only about gays and lesbians as the context shows in Romans 11. In whatever way this phrase was used outside of the Bible in secular and Jewish literature throughout time stands on it’s own and can be subject to personal and changing definition. Obviously the Jews do NOT accept the New Testament and do not accept the idea that Gentiles are accepted into the Covenant of God, so why should we trust their definitions as applicable to the New Testament for Christians? I am taking this definition from Scripture itself and going by the definition of words provided to us, which alone is difficult to do in our modern age since the Strong’s dictionary itself has changed throughout time based on changing theological beliefs and has taken out a lot in regards to idolatrous connections to more than this one topic. Modern translation has been highly influenced by the gnostic teaching of condemning physical acts and ignoring or omitting spiritual sins and this can be seen as a danger.

        So with what we have been given, this is how Romans 1:26 can be interpreted, both the way that I see it (and the old church fathers saw it as I listed) and how the moderns see it. So there is truly not one way of looking at it. I was only explaining why I see it the way I do. One can copy from any website now a days and it will have it’s own interpretation over this very disputed issue based on personal bias. So I am not saying that your side doesn’t have evidence, because it does. But this side also has evidence, so it is disputed as something not clear and when we feel it is clear, it’s based on our own personal conviction but can also be influenced by our predetermined biases. Because there are these 2 ways of looking at it, there is no “once and for all proof” either way. So what we believe comes down to conviction on what we feel is right for our own individual life with God concerning these things…. If it applies to us personally, one needs to pray diligently for discernment on how to proceed. If it does not apply to us personally, one should still pray for discernment if we are going to encounter this issue among other believers or potential believers and always uphold acting in love to others even if they don’t share our conviction. Now onto my original letter to you….

        I read your latest comment shortly after watching the sun rise and ironically the sky was shades of grey, purple and yellow and also blue. So your comment was quite fitting to see. I truly apologize that you’re so offended by what I’ve shared. 😦 I’m just sharing what’s been found in the ancient cultural interpretation of Scripture in it’s original language that strongly stresses idolatrous practices rather than a ban on all gays forevermore. I realize it’s different than how the modern Bible reads simply because it’s more detailed which raises questions to our modern simplified interpretation. I just want you to know that I never meant to come across as “arguing” with you at all. I was simply sharing with you some things that I’ve uncovered since this topic is the topic of my website and you came here and asked me a question, so that’s what most people talk about here. Plus I thought maybe you could gain even more empathy (because you already seem like a nice girl) by getting a better understanding of why I believe what I believe and that I’m not alone in believing this. I do feel I gave ample Scriptural evidence to these things both in comments and in my writings above, but I understand fully that you don’t accept them as supportive and that’s completely fine.

        But there is one thing that I must dispute or it would be a dishonor to my identity in the body of Christ. You said “sinners that don’t want to be saved?” Who said I’m a sinner that doesn’t want to be saved? I’ve lived more than twice your lifetime and spent the good majority of it in desperate plea of God to deliver me from homosexuality and desperately wanting to be saved and feeling for years that I was bound to hell because I believed in the judgments cast on me by others who said they spoke for God. If I didn’t care about wanting to be saved, wouldn’t it have been so much easier (in the short run) to reject God and not feel bound to what I thought were His requirements to be saved? If I didn’t want to be saved, wouldn’t I have left Christianity all together? My life is a testament to quite the contrary dear Lana… “Contrary” meaning totally the opposite, in that not only do I WANT to be saved (and am saved), but I would NEVER give up God for a moment, as HE is my all in all and my perfect love and my only reason for living in both the literal sense and my motivational sense to go on in this life that presents us with such hardship. I rely on Him for everything and it’s a shame that this would be questioned simply due to my sexual orientation and hunger for deeply studying the original language Scriptures.

        After years of toil and all this condemnation I felt from humans who claimed to speak for God of my damnation, He showed me He still loves me and sent His Son to die for my sins and I am an heir according to the promise by grace through faith. I fully accept His promise as fact! So what does this make me? An unbeliever? An idol worshiper? A God-hater? Im sorry you feel I’m excluded from salvation for existing as I am… Indeed free will we do have, but as I explained before, there is no free will in attraction.

        I understand that there is a language barrier between us, as English is not your first language, so I’m wondering now if you misunderstood many of the things I was trying to convey to you. Please understand that I am NOT suggesting that God’s moral law is a manner of personal conviction. We are told what is in the moral law and know well that all sin causes harm and all good things from God promote love. To make this Biblically clear, here is just one example I refer to: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not give false testimony,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love avoids doing any wrong to one’s neighbor, therefore love is complete obedience to Law.” -Romans 13:8-10

        So I would NEVER say “one can murder” or “one can commit adultery” or “one can worship idols” or “one can hate their neighbor.” I would never dare say that it’s okay to commit such blatant commands if one doesn’t “feel bad” to do them. These have been made very clear to us to be wrong things and are literally set in stone in the commands given to Moses on Mount Sinai. But what’s not set in stone and what’s been given only for Jews under the Old Covenant law is a manner of personal conviction for the modern believer. Here is a Christian website that outlines Biblically how there are manners of personal convictions between believers. (From Christian Communicators Worldwide):
        “Moral Absolutes vs. Convictions of Personal Conscience:
        In his letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, and Colossae, the Apostle Paul deals with issues of conscience. Much of the debate revolved around the Christian’s understanding of the Law of Moses. What part, if any, of the Mosaic Law is required for Christians? When there is no moral absolute clearly stated within the jurisdiction of the New Covenant, then the practice falls under the category of a personal conviction.

        We must accept one another when we differ on matters of personal conviction. 14:1, 15:1, 7
        We must not be on a campaign to convert others to our position. 14:1, 22, 15:1
        There are stronger and weaker positions. 14:2, 15:1
        We must not judge others or view with contempt those who differ with us on these matters. 14:3
        We are individually accountable to God, and will indeed have to give an account of our behavior to Him. 14:4, 10-12.
        We must be convinced in our own minds; that is, there must be no doubt in our minds as to the acceptableness of our position. 14:5
        It is possible for Christians with differing conscientious convictions to be pleasing to the Lord. 14:6
        The goal is to ascribe to Christ His rightful position as Lord. 14:7-10
        Don’t let your liberty of conscience cause a brother to stumble. 14:13, 21
        All things are clean that are not forbidden, but I can’t proceed with a doubting conscience. 14:14
        Do not practice your liberty in such a manner that will cause offense; this would violate the law of love. 14:15, 20
        Temporal matters are not central to the Kingdom of God, but it is the eternal things wrought by the Spirit that should be our focus. 14:17
        Remember that your personal convictions are between you and God. 14:22
        Never violate your conscience. You cannot do so without sinning. 14:23
        We should strive to be at peace, and to please the other for his edification. 14:19, 15:1-2

        Legalism is:
        Distorting the gospel by adding conditions to free grace: Acts 15:1, 7-11; Gal.1:6-7, 2:11-16, 4:8-11, Gal. 5:2-4; Col.2:16-17
        Substituting man-made regulations for the Word of God: Matthew 15:1-3
        Majoring on the minors and neglecting the more important issues: Luke 11:42
        Overconcern with the externals while disregarding matters of the heart: Matthew 23:27
        Regarding with contempt or judging a brother based on matters of personal conviction: Romans 14:1-5
        Trusting in ourselves that we are righteous based on religious performance: Luke 18:9-14
        Hypocrisy, the leaven of the Pharisees: Luke 11:53-12:1
        – See more at: http://www.ccwtoday.org/article/an-outline-for-understanding-issues-of-conscience-and-legalism/#sthash.zLmRiL0Y.dpuf

        So clearly there are personal convictions between believers and this is Biblically supported. They are matters which are not clearly stated as moral absolutes under the New Covenant of Christ, and although you may see these New Testament verses as clear (in the changed modern Bible interpretations that have inserted words and concepts not present in the original), I do not see them as clear compared to the original language of the inspired Scriptures (which is the Bible that I trust the most because it’s not a “version,” but the real actual Text.) With a lack of overt command in the New Testament against same-gender monogamous life-long relationships, this is now up to a manner of personal conviction and we are told to be guided by avoiding harm and acting in a manner of love. This to me, my personal conviction, is not harming and is acting in a manner of love. I speak not of the sex (which is a very small portion of any lifelong union), but I speak of the love that is shared between 2 believers to share their life together worshiping God. For to have my life partner bears more Spiritual fruit for me than a life of isolated celibacy.

        However, I most certainly believe and acknowledge that Adam was created for Eve as his suitable partner. I most certainly believe and acknowledge that the Bible promotes marriage between men and women. I do not appose this at all just by saying that we must also investigate what’s in store for that person who was born without this instinct to be in a heterosexual marriage. If the natural love was placed by God in a heterosexual for the opposite sex, we must ask what is acceptable for the person who was born with a natural love for the same sex. As gays and lesbians, we are most certainly in the minority and it’s no doubt that the Bible speaks primarily about the majority, but still speaks a message of grace and salvation to every person equally which people are free to accept or reject. Even moreso are intersex people (including hermaphrodites) for which no instruction of acceptable pairing was given in Scripture. They are not technically male or female, but God created them and has not rejected them, as all humankind is eligible for His saving grace of salvation. I also already showed you the scientific evidence of the biological cause for homosexuality. So God obviously created more than what was created with the first 2 people in the Garden and He must value variation or He would have made us completely all the same. Satan does not have power to create people this way. Satan is NOT our Creator. Only God designs us and it is written,
        “13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. ” Psalm 39:13-16

        So to ask such questions of God in light of knowing that the Bible does not blatantly command “no gay marriage” or “no gay life-long pairing” is not an insane question. James 1:5 says “If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and He will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking.” Trust me that I have asked more than once and was led to these studies in the inspired Hebrew Aramaic and Greek Text which transformed my life and vastly improved my walk with God! Not only that, but also it increased my desire for witnessing to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. So this is the good fruit that’s come from this for me.

        But I fully understand that the message I received is not for all. As Jesus said concerning Eunuchs, “Not all can receive this saying, but only to those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb……Let those who have received this receive it.” (Matthew 19:11,12.) This “saying” has been received clearer to me now than ever before since reading about the biological studies that show that gays are “born that way from their mothers womb.” Quite literally “from their mothers womb” because it is the hormone levels in the womb itself that created them this way, so even more interesting that Jesus would phrase it in this manner. I understand that you have not received this saying in order to understand it because you have not received it and that’s totally fine and so it’s completely NOT up to me to convince you! Please understand that I only say these things to you in order to share what I have uncovered; my personal journey and personal conviction. I am not angry or hateful or enraged that you don’t accept it. I only ask that you not cast judgments against my faith and love for God. I believe you came to my website for a reason and I pray that you will benefit in whatever way brings glory and honor and praise to our Lord Jesus Christ! May He continue to increase your blessings and knowledge to benefit His Kingdom! As always, His will be done! Thank you for your words Lana. May it be a blessing to all who share your conviction in Jesus name.
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        P.S. I would like to talk about other things on here other than the gay topic too, as I love communing with all believers in Christ! So you are welcome to comment about anything you’d like! I don’t want to upset you, so I won’t discuss this topic with you anymore unless you do first (which you did, so I responded). So I hope there’s no hard feelings! Much love to you!

      • Lana says:
        August 6, 2015 at 5:52 pm

        To make this Biblically clear, here is just one example I refer to: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not give false testimony,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love avoids doing any wrong to one’s neighbor, therefore love is complete obedience to Law.” -Romans 13:8-10
        Hi, sister yes, adultery is still valid God law; one major wrong, sin and adultery is by definition include fornicating, that is all sexual activity,extramarital sexual relation outside from God-blessed union of one man one woman join in one flesh, this is moral absolute…
        Anyway, finish, you read me clearly i make so much efforts with you, for you, i accept you do what you want with it; i not care, what you do with it; i respect your freedom, and privacy me i am busy with my own problems and sins, too…. Not hard feelings, not hate, no problem. Next, can you repeat me, what about, Jerusalem and Lourdes Mary ghost, next time, please? God says, ghost of dead human people not exist, right…? Thank you very much, take care most.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 7, 2015 at 9:25 pm

        Hi Lana,
        Sorry I don’t have much time to write a the moment, but wanted to answer your question about the ghost thing. Christians have varied beliefs about this. As I described in a previous comment, some believe the dead are in an unconscious sleep state until the day of resurrection and could not be souls wondering around. Others believe we go directly to Heaven or Hell at the moment of death. There is Scriptural support for both ideas as I previously described in my longest comment to you a few days ago. So what is in between death and the day of resurrection depends on how you look at the Scriptures. But we know the Bible prohibits being a medium or necromancy, which is contacting the dead… So does this mean it’s possible since it’s prohibited? Or perhaps a demon could pretend to be a dead loved one? We know that satan can mask as an angel of light, so could demons mask as dead loved ones? I think it’s certainly possible.

        But after more Biblical research, I find it interesting that there is a case in the Bible where a dead human spirit was actually called upon for guidance in 1 Samuel 28. Was this an isolated incident that God permitted in this one incident only or could this be done at any time? It would seem that it is entirely possible to contact a dead human spirit by this chapter in the Bible, but it was still prohibited to do. In this Chapter, King Saul had been killing all of the mediums and necromancers in the land, but he desperately wanted guidance on what to do about something and the people believed that ghosts could tell the future. So King Saul was so desperate to know the future that he went to a medium in Endor and had her summon the ghost of Samuel! It appears that Saul couldn’t visually see Samuel, as he had to rely on the mediums description of who she saw to know who it was and she had to relay the message to Saul what the spirit of Samuel said. So only the medium could see dead Samuel’s ghost, but the Bible says it was really him, so it was NOT a demon pretending to be him. This is so freaky!!!! Isn’t it?! So I guess this shows that some mediums are real in that they do have the actual ability to see and communicate with the dead. I would shy away from calling this a “gift,” but it is a real “ability” to see the dead spirits. But we are not supposed to do this because I think it’s very spiritually dangerous because of the high possibility that demons could deceive one into thinking they are their dead loved one. Also when Jesus walked on water, the disciples thought he was a ghost at first, so does this also show people could sometimes see ghosts since this is what they assumed? Who knows. I actually don’t doubt at all that some people have the ability to see supernatural things that are not in the physical realm, but we are told not to seek them out, as this is divination.

        So when that “ghost Mary” came to that woman, I would not automatically trust it to be really Mary because if God doesn’t want us contacting the dead and He wants us to rely only on Him for guidance, then why would He send a ghost of Mary (or anyone) to her? Obviously God can do whatever He wants, but this whole story feels strange to me and I just don’t feel that it glorifies God but rather glorifies Mary and the woman who claimed to see her, and this I cannot promote! Jesus came as our Intercessor so that all believers have direct access to God, as the shroud tearing at the temple was further proof of this that all are welcome to come to Him directly without any need of any other intercessor but Jesus. So I think this ghostly Mary story calls for prayers of major spiritual discernment, and my discernment tells me that this was not Mary. Sometimes things may come to people without them first seeking them out, but as it commands, 1 John says to “test the spirits” and if they do not say that Jesus came in the flesh, then they are not good. But I would worry to even try to talk to them at all!

        So maybe ghosts could exist as supported by this passage, but we are not to communicate with them or this can “open the door” to deception from demons. Why God allowed Saul to contact the dead person Samuel, I do not know and would have to do more research. Of course allowing this doesn’t mean that He approved of it. But if no ghosts exist, then He at least allowed this one to appear is what I mean.

        I do however find it interesting that Saul was killing off the mediums, but then went to one himself and God allowed the medium to contact dead Samuel for Saul. The medium was really afraid he was going to kill her, but he swore by God that no harm would come to her if she summoned dead Samuel. So this whole story is very interesting. As I said before, maybe God allowed it in this isolated incident. If people are in a “soul sleep,” then maybe they could “wake up” if summoned, but we are not to do this. Even weirder would be to think if all souls go directly to heaven or hell, why they would be allowed to pop out of these realms and talk to living people if called upon? The only other thing I can think of is if most ghosts are those waiting for the day of judgment. But this I cannot prove by Scripture, so it’s only a thought.

        Despite this verse, I don’t think this is proof that ghosts are just walking around like you hear about in haunted houses…. Now I know for sure there are real supernatural events that take place around some people and at some locations, but this doesn’t mean that they are for sure ghosts of the dead people and could still be demonic pretending to be people or even the evil spirits of the Nephilim since they would be eternal creatures who are said to be wondering the earth as disembodied evil spirits (according to the book of Enoch)… I guess we’ll find out one day, but for now we should stay away from dabbling in the supernatural realm because it could cause us harm. We should only get our information through God Himself.

        Especially dangerous are Ouija boards or spirit boards that seek to contact the dead. This for sure can lead to demonic manifestations. I heard once in a creepy show “when you call on one of the dead, they can all hear you.” So the warning was not to do it or something evil and unwanted could talk back. So the ghost of Mary shown to this woman? I don’t think so… But I wasn’t there. But I don’t feel good about it honestly. It creeps me out.

        What do you think about all of this and what do you think about the ghost of Samuel appearing?
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        P.S. What was your question about Jerusalem?

      • Lana says:
        August 14, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        Hello, thank you for telling me sister… Yes i believe the dead are asleep until the day of Resurrection for all at the same time, when we will be judged by God individually; the “worthy” and the “bad”, persons…… Everyone will have to give account for themself for their deeds in this life, i think the pure part of the person; the good consciousness, the Spirit of God within every person made, to God image will be our judge… dsiceple Paul say we are withotue xcuse ebcause of the knowledge of what is right and wrong, i believe is innate; not relative to a person culture but absolute to a person humanity, and also revealed by God to be written in Scripture Bible; book.
        Ghost…. I read this chapter, Samuel seem to have been the real one, God was not approving or allowing, Saul, but stayed silent….. For the counsel to fight the Philistines. Hmm… Scary yes, me in Philippines, the ghosts are in culture but i don’t believe this is real dead humans haunting, i believe in spirits that never was humans only, angels or demons, influencing, our, life, and, “realm”…. The Spirit of God is called Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost, too in some places, countries, translations….. I dislike this thing, i am scareed of ghosts, and nto want to mess with this thing, seriously, freaky yes… JErusalem i was asking, if you went, to there, and if you would like to go? Me never go there but interested, and aslos cared ebcause of this syndrome making persons sometimes, crazy, irrational… Thank you very much, good bye to you.

    • Lana says:
      August 6, 2015 at 4:20 pm

      My God, the more i study deeper, closer and the more, i find, problem… With, your, claims, sister…. This; “pará ten eis physin,” is not the Bible text, the real text is written, “eis ten para physin”…..You say, : So with all this information when it says “pará ten eis physin,” what were the women doing? They were accepting the “(pará) penetration- which is the motion into which” (ten) “is” “(eis) in close proximity” to the “(physin) natural physical origin.” WIth the correct, writing, disciple Paul, words really say, as translations, render it, “into that contrary to nature”…. Not what you say.
      Another; this Greek word “en” you say, litteral translation is INSIDE,but in fact it is never used to say “inside” not once, but is used to say, “into” : http://biblehub.com/greek/eis_1519.htm this other “en” in the verse 23 http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm says, “between”, “among themselves”, again, correctly according, to dictionaries… I am sure you know that, but still construct, your argument, why..? Hmm;…. The last, evidence, more… https://books.google.fr/books?id=Vsc9rz5pdY8C&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=par%C3%A1+ten+eis+physin+romans+1&source=bl&ots=iP8MVTU8Yj&sig=oaY_VoPBuHnKBoMYTo376RiinhQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAWoVChMI3om5j7SVxwIVAsAUCh0-PADF#v=snippet&q=physin&f=false study, page 94, para physin, i not bother, to copy and paste,it also say, clearly rooted in the Stoic and Hellenistic Jew traditions, as Paul was educated, upbringing; and familiar to Paul target audience of his Romans letter,; “para physin” was understood to mean; was common to express, homosexul acts in general…, including, lesbian sex; yes. That is the parallel as this study, implies, the same you are trying to call to a difficult reading fitting your way is really, very unilkely; pelase you open the text, page 94 and read footnote number 5, adressed to this Miller, interpretation, this applies, to yours, too… Sister.. That “para physin” express, both homosexual acts as understood by that culture, milieu and “likewise” parellel the two,; and 27 develop what is this ambiguous “unnatural” saying, this is same-sex sexual activity, contrary to God given, order…
      Last, test; let see; replace “male” with “female” in the text, because the word Paul use is “likewise” to indicate a parallel action; and it not matter what subject; male or female gender order is adressed first or second….
      25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their MALES exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the FEMALES abandoned the natural function of the MALE and burned in their desire toward one another, FEMALE with FEMALE committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
      Next, your version?
      25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural ACCEPTING ANAL SEX WITH MEN, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and……… ???? Where is, the way, to say, they ACCEPTED ANAL SEX WITH FEMALE WOMEN as this, “likewise”, implies…? Well, instead, the unnatural action was…. Men, burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
      Reading,;
      26
      Subject doing the action : Women
      Action done: Exchanged natural for unnatural relations
      Disciple Paul not comment what it is unnatural, but “para physin”, was used to say, homosexaul acts in general including, lesbian sex and consensual gay sex, but still, fair to let the text, speak for itself no prejudice, assumption…
      Then, reader can read find only “likewise” “equally” to parallel 26 with followng,27 that will develop what Paul is pointing at, as being unnatural echange and, expression…
      27
      Subject doing the action : Men
      Action done : Exchanged natural for unnatural relations
      Then, the text develop itself to say, i copy from study, page 95 what consitutes unnatural sexual activity for men :
      1. in forsaking sexual relations with women
      2. un burning in desire for other men
      3. in doing that which was shameful with other men
      Then for this parallel, to work, how..? Likewise, also the women…. 1. have forsaken, sexual relation with males 2; burned in desire for one another woman of same sex, gender and 3. enacted on these, shameful lusts together with each other,….
      This, proves, that, sister, the text itself, speak for itself by its construction, structure….
      Study writer, author, concludes, correctly, verse 27 gives no indication what kind of homosexual activity are prohibited, instead homosexual relations in general are indicted.
      Last evidence, i am tired not fun to do this, rebuke you but i am one among Christian believer to do… Rebuke, and correct, and edifiy fellow neighbor, you, or another with love and kindness in the knoweldge, of God, and of, Christ, Son, Jesus…. dies for our sins, and we must accept to protect from, God, wrath, coming due to all of us, sinners… 😦
      Sister, you are brilliant, yes using, language but obscure your talent, using it for wrong purpose,of advocating, your lesbian; behavior not being sinful and this i am young and uneducated , but i find,it alarming and really saddening, me, i feel sad and cry for you iw ant to help you but can not, only Spirit can convince you of sin, so i pray … so sorry…
      Next, and last you can not stop and want to confront, your views, then please you do it with Scholar experts,if you think you are one of them please do it, not with me poor in english and i said all the time, i had not fun to search and study to verify your claims, not interested in debating this sexual sin, anymore!!! Well; to be sure I spend my time and accept with open mind and heart to read this study, very in depth, “para physis” you should to do… https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10210/194/Minni.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y The last time me bother with this debate, next time you talk to me, please,i accept you apologize to me i would like so much, and thank me for my time spend to deal with you, kindly and respect please, you should admit you have bad habit to manipulate language twice with me; using you demonstate the superior intelligence, knowledge of language and stuff,; but for what? not wise, not fair and not good, your goal, your end,i find is to remove lesbian sex from, the sins… I understand and not judge negatively , i know you do it ebcause youd efend yourself, interest i not blame you, but hey, if you want follow Son Jesus, you must do like otehrs, and deny yourself, not justify, i dream, God give law, God judge with law, God only, can,justify,and save, not us no matetr the amiount of reasons and inteligence you put into it… God thougths,and ways, higher than ours, this huimble me so much, adn yes, i rely on this, instead of my own, weak, limited human udnerstanding, i give example, like model, first born of God,; Jesus to be alaso,a child,a nd friend of God!! Sister, please, you stop it, to justify sin, i call this now, , devil advocate theory, this, homosexual theology i find today, i ahte it…. Please tos top, fight the wrong fight,against God, you should fight, against your own sin, instead. hand in hand with fellow struggli_ng sinners, .. Or else you dig, walk to your own… loss… You know.. So now, finish with me; please respect my will to not read from you to me; and to not engage, in no argument about God Law, for me, simple, as it is wirtten and established,; ordered, bu God;, one man one woman, one flesh, also lead to maybe, one baby of the two joining together, beautifully, complementary by nature… Then, finish, nothing outside is permitted by god, in the term of sexual expression and also not close family sex; because God created us that way, male and female to relate to each other, as partners, of the same couple, participating of the same flesh initially but freedom, you can chose not too if you not feel attracted, no probleml, but that where your freedom, should end with God, not take liberty to same gender sexual behavior,Bible record it is wrong,and idolatrous, of yourself, in the end,because narcissic form of…. Not God blessed in any case or you bring the verses,; not worship of God simply because falling outside of God, true design of us as different, complementary beings of opposite sexes to form, one, felsh, to couple, family, i accept this with so much thanks, to God reveal it, calm my heart the truth, free me form my occasional, same sex, temptation, i endure soemtiems, me too,; But, you deal with your own, difficulty to accept, and stop to justify it with language, this is the wrong, most; i am so sorry but that is true, to each their own task to correct themself in knowing, the living God revealing the truth, with fellow Christians,(mean, struggling sinners,you and me, liekwise same dsiciple Pauls say ,equally forgiven; by faith in God mercy , Grace to save us; redeemed by Jesus blood!!) and Spirit help, the virgin Marie and Jerusalem, continue or we will not be finding an agreement to discuss together, i warning you, polite, respect me too… Thank you and please take care, much, i pray for you, never hate you!!! Good bye…..

      Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      August 6, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      Thank you so much Gary! You made my day! I’m glad someone can appreciate it! 🙂

      Reply
      • A says:
        August 6, 2015 at 5:10 pm

        Hey how do u feel about the Christians who support polygamy? I ask this because even Jesus states a husband to each wife not wives

  110. A says:
    August 5, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    Leviticus, 18:22 and 20:13 aren’t repeated in Deut Lana so what does that say to you?

    Instead Deut 23:17 uses this Being a male temple prostitute (kadesh)

    so it’s not being lev 18:22 and 20:13 but the male temple prostitute was the sin. If homosexuality was a sin why did Paul not use any other words when there were words he could have used. Asernokoties does come from Lev 18:22 but what does that tell you? temple prostitute

    Reply
  111. Lana says:
    August 6, 2015 at 2:32 am

    Hello; A? This me and many already said, Deuteronmy very few about other sin close family example, prove this can not be used to correspond with Levite chapter; Already said too, proven, Levite is broad, general, absolute, not narrow, to shrine prostitute, or you come and give me the word, now. please? Me read only, what is written many trasnaltions available officialy by experts Scholars and hub, i not find no mention of specific word for situation, to restrict in Temple here… Hey;; me ask you too; do you go play with animal sex outside Temple? Because also same nothign restrict to Temple there… So? Answer still think so right? Do you go to burn child human sarifice to other god than Moloch, because it not say specific prohbit against other god? Come on, get real for moment…
    i leave you in your false belief as you want, your choice, freedom to chose, this your decision no problem for me, not my life and soul in the balance. God teach,; graceful offer and freedom to come be save, or lost, this is what Christian disciple must teach others to share the joy God save, and to say Graceful Mercy of God is up to you and me and another… But warning to know; sinner refuse offer and God wrath come now or. later, sure. for who is not forgiven sinner faithful in Son Jesus Christ.to save.
    The sexual sin listing in Levite, are all sin forever or tell me that other listed are OK now, do youd are? This same gender sexuality behavior too is always sin, always transgress the way God created us human male and female complimentary from one flesh, to become one flesh again. Only that is god-blessed to be Holy about, sexuality within lovers, partners committed situation agreement to stay together by the two, and love God and God love from both in middle hopefully…
    Simple enough? Because nothing more to say about it even child understand. You can accept this, hold on Christianity values and be saved or chose to hold on, to not let go the homosexuality values, actions, behavior, in this case, blog and be lost. Is freedom.
    This God word more brilliiant than little study woman clearly slave to sin do; i not juige and not blame her personally because she could be me and me could be live in her shoes; Fair. Me respect; all;: i know and agree, some grow with the predisposing to this sin, like otehrs, to other wrong behavior; Unfortunate but not predetermined, because this free will exist and this give moral personal responsiblity! Everybody will give account personally for themself, to God, in the end, i like so much!!
    When person refuse to learn God teach, is okay, their freedom but their choice too; no excuse any; of us,; all sinner, is bad nature and obvious to try help out the guilt result in person try to build the confidence we are not wrong with language and reasons, we are all right and God wrong. Happen for every sin, who would to sin, if it not for gain what we want, to seek behind the prohibiting? Me too i want the sex for fun, without the committment sometime, but i chsoe to follow what, my feeling or god word…? This case, homosexual temptation is the bad, shameful desire for pleasure of sex with the same gender, or the romantic thing you or me or other believe is missing us and available there but it all lies of devil, same first to mother Eve. Narcissic, self worship, idolatry call to unite with other already same, is wrong by definition…
    Devil say same you; See who children are from the fruits and the roots..We get to chose! Only two choice, possiblity, we children of God or children fo the world, the devil master of this world, clearly. Exlusive of each otehr, God spirit and world spirit the same, Christianity true faith and homosexuality deceiving lie fo the devil…, Brilliant? Say what ? Did God really say? Yes God do really say,with living word of Bible and Jesus resurrection to support it; only the man and woman, committed are good and right to start share the sexual intimacy, in God eyes; you get to chose, you deal with it, accpet or refuse, but if you refuse, and continue to claim to be Christian faithful to God; then you must prove not just word talk and come with real; concrete action show me the Bible evidence, this god design us human male and female for sexuality and Marriage is changed, now or shut he lips of you; forever, sorry i say but that is, still polite and fair….
    Before you break the barrier, you look around, you can do it for yourself, no problem fo me it is for your own loss but if, when you break barrier God placed with good Bible moral values, for other to persuade with language, you play devil advocate and deserve same, lake of fire, that is sure; God will destroy sin, and if sinner attached to it, will go along with sin; finish, and fair me say what God say, you do what you want with it, as always, all… Freedom.
    But sure too; God warn so much, many will be to false teaching, appear right to us, and in their own, eyes but watch out carefully, the bad can not stand,against, the God word reveal the truth… Homosexuality sex, practice cause person to attach to it and reject truth of God, this is, normal consequence. Up to you to go that way; follow sinful nature instead, God instructions. your call; and your loss. Me, i follow God; my betetr chocie, not shame to say. you are wrong follow your ownd esire, to sin. Bible say careful the wolf in the sheep cloth false teacher to deny power of Son Jesus to save and change transform life of sinner to Saints; either Jesus still do;, or do not, no middle way about this… Me belive, still do; and you? NOt answer, keep it to yourself and pray to God, discretion is important!
    God give the same to all, teaching, absolute, not relative to you personal opinion and sensibility feeling; this is ridiculous to think , beleive and trust this. You are not special because predisposed to one sin or another. Just different way of life and temtpation to fight, or embrace adn stay lost, up to you and me, and another, fair yes? I don’t get to chose,what God say is right and; or wrong, i not can chose my gender i am born, i accept it. My race,human, all but ethnical Asian Philippines too, i accept, what choice i have; i not asked?
    Different, situation for sexual behavior, no one born with, it sure. Baby not play sex with other baby in the couch, ridiculous… Predisposition to certain expression of it, okay, sure,why not? it not remove moral personal responsibltiy anyway!Me young but i know; Discipline, is for disciple of Son Jesus and bad, reject this; that is all. I pray for all; but me only me, sinner need, forgiven, and be saved, by God;. Ii only say the trtuh, gospel good worjd from good book, record, God Bible, Goc can not and will not to save against the will,; If one chose, prefere the sin, the darkness they reject the light, this is written, clearly.
    Tthis blog writer,and to reader, freedom to chose to embrace Chrisitanity or the homosexuality practicing, is up to every one, welcome to chose, decision is, free to all; fair. But can not hold on one without to let go the other. God is not be mocked. And god save who agree about sin, holding on Jesus sacrifice for us; This gospel word more briliant than all human can say to justify their sin with language. The God can bless and forgive but must come for it in teh name of son Jesus; God hate sin, and me too i hate it in me, and that is all i can do, Each must to fight, the sin within their own person, this is the truth, i ntoc are to fight the flesh and blood of you, or the sin of you!!!.
    Farewell to you, finish, argumenting with me if i read again, the one of you dispute with me God law, i leave forever. this blog. My freedomto refuse engaging in stupid debate with person of bad will or unconscious of the truth God reveal; right? So no problem for me, but i sad because i like sister, talk about, the other subject, like Jerusalem and ghost of Lourdes i wish; want to know… But this, one who defend sin is not acceptable, understand?
    Thank you very much but Bible teach, who is against God, can not to be, disciple; simple. Good bye. to you. Take care most; i pray for all,to come to God and be save not care who sin what!!! and i am sorry too, if is ay offending, but hey, you ffend me too and God, most by promoting, advocate of the devil, sin…. Not hate me, for being holding on real ,Christian values about what is good and right sexualit and Marriage as God design opposed to your bad and wrong design;i not afraid to judge and call evil, its name. You deal with it. your problem, if angry with truth god reveal, to expect from, sinner refsue, God authority, too… Is normal; growth, is hurting!. Me not hate you personally but evil, sin behavior i hate!! God teach command must hate, so if you hate me for this, i not care much, i have not treated wrong any… Take care OK?. Thank you…. And finish to argument with me, please… Boring and offending, not brilliant; why me angry? Because i not want my brain washed by propaganda about homosexual behavior speical cases without Bible sourcing it, there is not special case apart from one man and woman are one flesh; according to Bible God, or you bring it to the table with record evidence from the Bible book only no other source, and i consider again; that is all i care for knowing the Truth God reveal, nothing more, or less. Thank you understand me too…Farewell and take care most….

    Reply
    • A says:
      August 6, 2015 at 4:57 pm

      There is the David And Jonathan relationship and The Centurion And Pais which can mean lover

      Reply
    • Danny and Roland says:
      August 6, 2015 at 5:30 pm

      WOW, just WOW the most current comment I read on this blog is coming from one piece of a bigoted stuck up… So shocking, I was not expecting that, at all!
      Flash news, “Lana” it’s your turn, to learn first how to spell proper English and Grammar rules instead of bothering yourself and others with culturally obsolete ones. Second piece of advice, you should mind your own business and “sins” instead of playing GOD here looking down on us from your high horse, how dare you accusing and teaching loving, innocent others living out their God given,and God blessed, innate homo-erotic conditions on what’s hot and what’s not for themselves, you homophobe!! Oh, and could you do us all a favor pretty please, and go back to the Middle-Age, too…? Thank you very much!
      (PS to “Lana” : Do you like crab cakes, by any chance? Careful with that, they are EVIL CREATURES, you must NEVER eat any! If you keep Leviticus, please be fair and keep it all the way!!)
      To the Author of this amazing blog…
      Moanti (Moe-on-tee)
      Thank you kindly for your time and sustained efforts in educating the homophobic, thick headed masses and raising genuine Christians awereness for our cause, your on-going hard work to share true knoweldge and proper science is grealy appreciated by me and my companion for several months already!
      We enjoy your Symbolic Hebrew Characters studies, this indeed adds tremendous weight to the original meaning of Biblical Scriptures, and nails the argument (fact!) this is exclusively Male Shrine prostitution adressed and prohibited in each and every of the Bible clobber passages when properly read and left in their context.
      God says nothing about Today’s Gays and Lesbians, Period. I also dare anyone here to bring it on with the Bible, where are those so-called verses actually dealing with our current, caring, loving, committed Gays and Lesbians relationships, please? Come on, anyone…? Right, silence in the Court, my thougths exactly… 😉
      My beloved Brethren, and my Sister in Christ please allow me to conclude quoting your own God inspired, and God inspiring words :
      “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?♥”
      Amen to that,
      From Danny and Roland, with love.

      Reply
      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 7, 2015 at 9:32 pm

        Greetings to you Danny and Roland!
        First, thank you for your compliments and I praise God that these studies have helped you! I am also glad you have found value in the Hebrew word studies. This is one of my most favorite areas of investigation and it’s shocking how the Hebrew language encodes information about Jesus at every turn it seems! People tend to forget that Hebrew became a dead language and only reemerged as a spoken language since the re-birth of Israel in 1947, so this could explain why people have simplified it and don’t initially see that it’s packed with detailed information of it’s meaning in every letter! Also spoken modern Hebrew lacks this encoding ability and has become more reliant on root words rather than the root letters of Biblical Hebrew. So there is so much to learn about this divine language and it’s also amazing that it’s reemergence is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy!

        I understand that some comments made by people who don’t agree can make us upset and defensive. I guess the best thing to do is remember that people do have their individual convictions from God for their own individual life and as strongly as we feel about our convictions they are going to feel about theirs. I know words can be hurtful too, but it’s best to know that most are innocently misinformed or just won’t accept it because they weren’t meant to since it doesn’t apply to them. So we must strive to work to mutually build each other up and show the love of Christ so that they can at least see the work of the Spirit within us as believers, lest we increase the great divide between us.

        Trust me that it’s taken me many years to get to this point of inner-peace with those who strongly differ. It takes a lot now to “ruffle my feathers” but probably the most offensive thing to me is someone doubting my faith and renouncing my ability to be a Christian simply due to my orientation. The worst of all accusations I have ever received was that by believing and sharing theses Bible studies, I was guilty of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit! This was the most upsetting thing I’ve ever experienced on here. But this sin in context is saying that Jesus performed His miracles by the power of Satan rather than the Holy Spirit, and I’m pretty sure (make that COMPLETELY sure) that I haven’t done that!!!

        But anyway, I’m just bringing this up because I know it’s hard to read some of these opposing comments, but we must strive to greet them as a brother and sister in Christ and be patient, as some have come to realize this alternate view that promotes love for all equally, but it never came by name calling (on either side.)

        So I hope that this website can continue to help you and your partner grow in The Lord together! Thanks again and please feel free to ask any questions if you have any! 🙂 I’m very glad that you’re here! May God bless you guys in magnificent and unexpected ways!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Angela says:
        August 7, 2015 at 11:17 pm

        Hey Moanti any advice to tell people that they are wrong that polygamy is God’s law as well when Jesus clearly show us to be monogamous right? Also is your partner doing any better?

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 8, 2015 at 3:28 am

        Hi Angela!
        I do feel that the New Testament promotes monogamy only. Remember what you brought up about the 2 different words both translated as divorce; one being the physical separation or “putting away” and the other being the actual finalized divorce certificate? Well using your argument of this, I think you can make a solid case for promotion of monogamy. Let me explain… If polygamy was allowed, then the man who hasn’t given a certificate of divorce to his wife yet wouldn’t be considered adultery by Jesus if he married another woman. If polygamy was accepted, then a man who fails to give a certificate of divorce to his wife would just be considered polygamous in the eyes of God (even if he wasn’t currently living with her) and it could not be considered adultery if polygamy was acceptable. Does that make sense? Jesus may have still condemned the men for mistreating and neglecting their wives by separating from them and not taking care of them, but He couldn’t have called it adultery as He did if polygamy was considered okay, because all it would have been is marrying a second wife and neglecting the first. But Jesus called it adultery so one cannot marry a second wife while still married to the first. But under the Old Covenant, polygamy was tolerated and it was not considered adultery to have a new wife. God obviously didn’t want the men to put their wives away or divorce them, but either way, in the past it wasn’t considered adulterous but Jesus made it known that it was. So perhaps that was the reason for the shocked and marveled reaction of the Pharisees and even the Disciples since monogamy appeared to be a newer Jesus promoted concept. Note that I wouldn’t have caught this had you not explained these 2 different words for divorce to me, so it’s a good thing you did! But since a lot of people don’t know the difference between these 2 words for divorce, you might have twice as hard of a time convincing them. But once they understand it I think it makes the position on monogamy even more strong.

        But even if someone doesn’t believe that the 2 words for divorce are that different and holds to the most popular position that re-marriage after divorce is wrong, I think that what Jesus said still totally promotes monogamy. Because if it’s considered adultery to re-marry after divorce (finalized or not) than it wouldn’t be called adultery for the man if polygamy was okay and Jesus was speaking about the men as well as women. So I think either way you look at the divorce issue, calling a second marriage adultery shows that polygamy is condemned.

        But aside from that, I did a quick glance at the verses that use the Greek words for husband and wife (singular forms) and husbands and wives (plural forms.)

        γυναικὶ, γυναῖκα, γυναικὶ and γυνὴ are singular for wife.
        γυναῖκας and γυναικῶν are plural for wives.
        ἄνδρα, ἀνδρὶ and ἀνὴρ are singular husband.
        ἄνδρας and ἀνδράσιν are plural husbands.

        With this noted, every time there is the singular use of husband, there is a singular use for wife. Likewise, every time there is a plural use for husbands there is a plural use for wives. If polygamy was supported in the New Testament, we should expect to find a singular husband with a plural wives, but there is not any that I could find…. So when the New Testament speaks of marriage, it only promotes monogamy. I hope this helps!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti
        P.S. My partner is doing quite well. Thanks for asking! 🙂

      • Angela says:
        August 8, 2015 at 10:56 am

        “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

        But Jesus never added on the multiple wife. And Paul himself had never added multiple wives either when looking into what Paul said the same thing in Ephesians 5:31 and 1 Cor. 7:2

        Woudn’t there have been something about polygamy on there? I mean Paul always used singular when talking about marriage.

        That’s good to hear about your partner being better. I want to know with the U.S ruling with you two does it feel surreal that you can get married? Have you ever thought it would happen? Sorry but many people I know are very surprised that gay marriage came fast in the U.S But when we think about it the same can be said for interracial marriage many still haven’t accepted it. In fact Mississippi has over 50% of people dislike interracial marriage. Very sad for this day and age

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 11, 2015 at 10:32 pm

        Hi Angela,
        I think you’re right that Jesus would probably mention it plural if it were polygamy. I’m also surprised about the Supreme Court decision. I’m wondering if there’s any loop holes for the next president to amend it because I know many Christians (and many in the Republican Party) who are so appalled they can hardly stand it. There’s one presidential candidate who calls any pro-gay rights “Rainbow Jihad!” That’s crazy about Mississippi with inter-racial marriage! We’ve just seen same-sex marriage come and go before at least at a state level, so who knows what’s next. But this seems more solid with it being upheld by the Supreme Court, but I still wouldn’t be surprised if those who oppose it use it as a political tool in 2016 if the president has any kind of power to amend the decision… I hope it stays, but at the same time, I hope they can uphold solid religious protections laws for pastors who feel convicted against marrying same-sex couples. I don’t think it’s right for them to be forced. Plus forcing them would give the anti-gay movement more ammunition to be upset and further blame us for the coming apocalypse as I described in my last post! It’s just a sticky situation all together… I heard already that it was ruled that a courthouse had to give marriages licenses to everyone despite the individual clerks beliefs. I guess since it’s not a religious institution, it’s only fair. But for churches and pastors who feel it’s wrong, I don’t think they should be mandated. What do you think? As far as my partner and I, we already made a covenant of marriage in the eyes of God and at this point, there’s some personal issues that would have to be worked out first (regarding finances, taxes and her conservative family) before we could bring the government into it. So it will have to be held off for the time being. But we are content as we are right now and don’t feel any “less married,” so it’s fine. It would just be nice to have the legal protections too, so at some point we will as long as it’s still around!

        Out of curiousity, where are you from? Are you in the U.S. or outside? If outside, what’s the status of same-sex marriage where you are? I just wondered where you were from since I never asked and you’ve been on here for quite a while! 🙂 I hope you’re doing well! As always, thanks for your comments!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • Angela says:
        August 11, 2015 at 10:46 pm

        I am from New York City. I always wonder what what is considered marriage? I mean I know back than there was a wedding ceremonies. However what makes them? I mean even today there has to be a different in what is wedlock and marriage. Also I hope things work out for you two when you guys if/do decide to get married. I do agree that unless if it’s a government agencies they should have to the right to say no. However, I also have to state that has long has they don’t go hateful all the couple. I mean that’s what happened with interracial marriage it just become acceptable even though many were against.

        P.s you probably guess by now but A is also me. I just feel a bit lazy at times and just write A

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 11, 2015 at 11:27 pm

        Hello again Angela aka “A,”
        Yes I did right away think you were you even when you called yourself “A” and I recognized your writing without even noticing that you changed the name! I guess it’s since you’ve made enough comments for me to know who you are! 🙂 That’s awesome that you’re in New York City! Have you been there all of your life or have you lived anywhere else? Were you there on 9/11? Do you like it there? I’ve never been to NYC, but have traveled in the past upstate. (I’m in California and have been here all of my life.)

        It is my personal conviction that marriage is a covenant made before God and should be monogamous, committed and for life. I don’t feel that the government has to be involved to be considered married in the eyes of God, but it’s a nice perk with extra rights and such. I just see the religious side and the government side as different, with the God-centered covenant being the foundation and the government license part being a helpful add-on for benefits. The God-centered covenant is of course the most important! But I know many might disagree with me…. And for the record I’m not saying that couples who legally marry lack God’s recognition. I just think a marriage can still be legitimate without it.

      • Lana says:
        August 8, 2015 at 9:35 am

        Hello…. Hmmm; You, not polite…. Me, poor with english, but rich more than you with manners… I come here, to learn, i not have judge or blame, dentity, or orientation gay lesbian, etc, or you tell me i did? i said many times, freedom to chose,, decision for yourself and, to each their own, task; duty to deal with their own sins, can with the help of Spirit, or not and get lost in our sins, freedom, again…, I come here i wanted to know, is Bible, disciple Paul write Romans 126, speak,of lesbian sex or not? Well, i find more and more, with study, day after day so thank you sister, fighting,me with argument with you, it bring the good fruit in the end and help me to encourage me to study deeper, myself for the truth that is written in Bible not my opinion, and what i find…? Such article, explain, very well http://www.reclinercommentaries.com/2012/06/does-romans-1-allow-homogenitality.html Result? Ancient, Church fathers,did not interpret “hetero anal sex” for verse 26 at all in a stable, regular manner in early before 400 this is false assumption and claim this is what i search the answer for… I study, and find, Aristides, Justin Martyr did not talk of women 26,one word they did understand this text of idolatry shrine prostitution, i can agree it is anyway irrelevant to my research… Clement, can not find online his text clearly but from what i can find and read his argument adress the whole verses from 24 or 25 to 27 or 29 or 30 and not specifically 26 women lost in the middle, he overlook it; and comment about anaml sex; sodomy in general and go on to speak of Hyenas sexuality??? This man think Rabbit grow additional anus every year, i find his crazy, funny belief so, his opinion, please excuse me but it is not much trustable, not reliable… Anastasios, a little footnote to Clement, this is the single; the only thing i do agree equate this unnatural change of women of their body vaginal use, for anal sex with men, but this Anastasios man comment, who is he…? Can not find, a Pope i think? One single personal opinion in a footnote does not make, a case, consensus interpretation of the chruch fathers,a s, asserted, claimed faslely.. The last Augustine, can be read , anal sex and lesbian sex and i believe, this maybe be true, for him, but i believe, oral, anal sex, in the wedlock, as it say in old times; bewteen man and woman, if they are committed and agree together, and are respectful of each otehr, that is not a sin and part of their privacy freedom as husband and wife… So finally apart from, Anastasios little comment I find all the others, cited referenced, church fathers can not be used to support this position, of women changed hetero vaginal for hetero anal sex women exchanged…. It may be interpret, chanegd vaginal for anal sex buyt say nothign of, partenr man or woman, and the parallel indicate strongly, this is lesbian sex called para physin, as understand by the culture of Pauil time, so… All i study and i study without the prejudice to find support for my position, but with open mind and heart for the truth i swear; and i find..? Paul , Dsiciple romans it is, general condemnation of Gay and Lesbian homo, mean same gender sexual behavior (not the human person only the behavior!!!) no matter who do it; by today name “straight, bi or homo” alike, and also in Pagan temple or at home or in the public square alike, because the desires are said shameful and dishonoring as wall as actions, this transcend time, and , space, location broad the same Levite words about, male homosexual behavior… You and others who disagree deal with it, it is not my problem if you disagree, with what is most likely the real, evidence about Romans 1 direction, meaning or you can, try to find, relevant, chruch fathers from all i searched, only this footnote was, can qualify as a piece of evidence all the others refernces; can not use them as credible sources… i know it is not in my power to convince, someone of their sins only Spirit can… In the end? Simple, God create, us, male and female and Jesus determine, too; God-blessed Marriage , is one man, one woman, one flesh… Next; Disciple Paul, say, one man, should have his Wife, and one woman,should have her Husband if they struggle with, temptation for sex burn in passion for sex because there is sexual immorality if not… What do you think that mean? Everything, not between one man and one woman, committed together is determined,by God to be sexual immorality, this is the correct truth, you accept or refuse, freedom… Homosexuality temptation no way, of escape? Well, this is self pity because God call all of us to Holiness, and the Slavation is open to everyone stop with vcitim it is really boring and weak to escape moral responsibltiy this born that way lie,; you can find without sexual relation, in same gender, friendship, way of escape from sin to holiness, beleive it or not, you get to chose…. Good luck to each their own, responsibltiy to do good and to not do wrong, according to God Morality values… Last, pelase do not answer me if you write impoltie again, orif sister respond, do it only if you have concrete material about early chruch fatehrs, beside this single footnote of Anastasios or else, please, do not post without any new information about 26 heterosexual anal or lesbian sex… Me think it is can be unmarried anal sex but also lesbian sex,can play with, the phallus, dildo? Sexual immorality, outside from,God-blessed sorry but, heteroseuxal wedlock only is blessed as God says, Genesis Jesus and Paul confirm clearly or you bring it on if you dare; anyway.nobody can, disporve, secual outside god blessed is always sin by definition.. Thank you very much; farewell to you and pelase, respect,minimum kind, and polite!!

      • Lana says:
        August 8, 2015 at 9:47 am

        Very shyyyy but i forget, woman can, use dildo, and obviosuly fingers, so sorry i say!!!

      • Danny and Roland says:
        August 8, 2015 at 2:15 pm

        Greetings Moanti (Moe-on-tee),

        Thank you greatly, to be honest your Hebrew symbols studies are the main attraction here, the stand-out feature in comparison to the numerous other blogs relating to our LGBTQ Christians community, really original and interesting to read!

        May I ask you Moanti, what do you think about the 144 000 Elects of God, called “Virgins” and “having not defiled themselves with women” (or men, for you!)
        Could this prophecy refer to us…?

        My partner and I understand and welcome the diversity of opinions and convictions, it is obvious the tradition of corporate homophobia within the church is to blame for such negatives ones, and therefore, we wish to express our sincere apologies to our friend “Lana” here for our words, especially for pointing out her lacking in English.
        The lady seems to have some personal problem and questions regarding Lesbian sex, perhaps is it, an itch to participate…?
        It is not a “sin” dear, Love is all the Law demands…

        From Danny and Roland. with much, much Love.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 11, 2015 at 9:22 pm

        Hello again Danny and Rolland!
        I’m really glad that you appreciate my Hebrew studies! This motivates me to do more of them! 🙂 So about the 144,000. Here are the 2 verses in which they appear:
        1st mention:
        “‘Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.’ And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
        12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 12,000 from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000 from the tribe of Manasseh,
        7 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000 from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 12,000 from the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the tribe of Benjamin were sealed.” -Revelation 4:3-8
        2nd mention:
        “Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as FIRSTFRUITS for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.” -Revelation 14:1-5

        After close examination, I don’t think that this could be talking about 144,000 gays and lesbians, but this doesn’t rule out that some could have a natural gay orientation. But before I go on, let it be known that I don’t think any that could have a gay orientation are in a relationship if they are said to be virgins, so they would be celibate. Plus it’s very specific that all of the 144,000 are males (so this couldn’t include lesbians or straight women for that matter.) Many believe that these are the ONLY people saved in the tribulation time and they are all Jews, but I would disagree. Why would God only save a small number and have them be men and Jews only? If we are no longer Jew nor Gentile or male and female, but one in Christ Jesus, then why would the tribulation only produce 144,000 saved male Jews? Instead I see that these are said to be the “firstfruits” which indicates that they are the first of a much larger harvest of believers. (Also note one of the Feast Days in Leviticus is “the Feast of the Firstfruits” which precedes the Harvest.)

        Another thing to note about the 144,000 is that they are from the 12 tribes of Israel (which are Abrahams decedents from the 12 sons of his grandson, Jacob, who was renamed “Israel.”) Today we only know of 2 surviving tribes (Judah and Benjamin). Some say that the lost 10 tribes no longer exist because they intermarried with other nations under captivity. If that’s the case, than to find 12,000 per tribe that are all virgin males (that have also never lied by the way) could be impossible.

        But there is another possibility entirely that these “firstfruits” are not the firstfruits of the tribulation, but rather the firstfruits of Christians that existed in the past who are sealed to be sent as the servants to teach the earth about Jesus during the tribulation. We know there are the 2 witnesses who do great signs and wonders (and plagues) to show the reality of God, but it wouldn’t be shocking to think that God sends more to teach throughout the earth during this time. Another reason to think this is because it says “they follow the Lamb wherever he goes.” Perhaps they literally had physically followed Jesus when He was on the earth and this would make sense as to why they were called the “firstfruits.” There’s even more evidence to this in that the Greek word translated as “follow” (akolouthountes) is actually rendered as the past tense “followed” in all of the other verses its used.

        Also their second mention in Revelation takes place between the trumpet judgments and the bowls of wrath and they are already standing with Jesus on Mount Zion which is repetitively referred to as the dwelling place of Heaven on earth in Scripture. Furthermore, it talks about the Heavenly living creatures and the song that was taught only to the 144,000. If Revelation is in chronological order, than this wouldn’t really make sense for the 144,000 to be on earth only for 7 trumpets and not the 7 bowls. If they are sealed and protected, then they should remain protected through the entire 7 years, right? So it would seem that the 144,000 came from Heaven and if you look at the whole book of Revelation as an outline, the second mention of them comes at a midpoint that seems to veer off after the 7 trumpets (before the 7 bowls) and talks about the origins of Mary and Jesus’ birth, the origins of the fall of satan, the origins of the antichrist and origins of the false prophet. With this in mind, it seems that it’s very possible that the second mention of the 144,000 are that of the origins of the 144,000 which are initially in Heaven with Jesus (before the tribulation.) This would make sense in that one could easily find 12,000 per 12 tribe in Heaven. But in an age where procreation was of upmost importance, how are so many virgins found? Even more puzzling would be to find that many in our day!

        But there may be even more to the story than I could have ever imaged after cross referencing key words and concepts in these verses compared to other Biblical Scripture which might reveal exactly the identity of the 144,000 and I find it totally astounding! Im not saying that what I’m about to explain is for sure, but it’s definitely worth consideration considering the Scriptural connections. Let me explain but note that you must pay close attention to each individual clue combined in the next 3 paragraphs.

        Shortly before the second mention of the 144,000 in Revelation, there appears to be a random mention of the origins of Mary having Jesus (called “the male child”) and the Dragon trying to devour him. It says that the woman (referred to as having “12 stars” above her head) flees away into the wilderness to safety and the Dragon is furious and then goes off to “make war against the rest of the children…” This sounds a lot like Mary fleeing to Egypt from King Herod when he killed off all male children ages 0-2 in Bethlehem and all of the coastal cities in Israel to attempt to kill Jesus. All males of this age were killed from all of the 12 tribes of Israel (since each tribe had a land portion of the coastal cities) and this connection might actually hold a clue into the 144,000. Let me further explain…

        There’s a prophecy that was fulfilled with the killing of these male children which is often overlooked. It states in Matthew 2:16,17 “Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof (of Israel) who were 2 years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.'” So Matthew reveals that Herod’s killing of the male children and the mothers being upset because their children were murdered is a direct fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. So what might be more to this prophecy? When we go to Jeremiah to see the context, we find a repeat of the above verse from Matthew in Jeremiah 31:15 followed by a second prophecy yet to be fulfilled: “But now this is what the Lord says: ‘Do not weep any longer, for I will reward you,’ says the Lord. ‘Your children will come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in your end,’ says the Lord, ‘that your children shall come again to their own land.'” Jeremiah 31:16,17 (reference verse 15.) So this prophecy from Jeremiah mentioned in Matthew says that the children will be killed (which was fulfilled) and the mothers would cry, but the second part of the prophecy is that these murdered children would resurrect in the land of the enemy (perhaps when Israel is controlled by antichrist) and come again to their homeland (when Israel is renewed by God.) This has yet to be fulfilled. Additionally, in Revelation right before the first mention of the 144,000, we see mention of “the 4 winds” of the earth that are about to be stopped in verse 4:1. Cross referencing this with Scripture we find in Ezekiel 37 a prophecy about old dry bones of “the whole house of Israel” (i.e. from all 12 tribes) that had been slain, but then “the 4 winds” gave them breath and they were revived to life. So this shows that the 4 winds have reviving power to resurrect the dead of the 12 tribes of Israel.

        To solidify this possibility, 1 Corinthians 15:20,21 says “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.” So not only is Christ called “firstfruits,” the firstfruits also relate to those who have died to be resurrected after Him (with Jesus being the first.) So looking at all of this together, could it be possible that the 144,000 are the resurrected souls of the male children slain by Herod because of their close connection to Jesus? They were the only innocent ones that had to die so that He could live, but He was the only innocent One that had to die so they (and we) might live eternal! This would coincide with them all being males, all being virgins, all being free of any lie (since they never got old enough to speak deceit) and them all being considered “blameless.” Also it would coincide with them being the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead, with Christ being the first of the firstfruits and it would appear that this could be a fulfillment of the second prophecy given in Jeremiah. This is especially possible because the prophecy says they will come back “in the land of the enemy” before returning to their land, so this can’t be talking about a general resurrection to Heaven since that could not be considered connected with “the enemy.” We know that antichrist will have charge of Israel in the last days, so he could be the enemy, or referring to Herod. Lastly, it would also make sense as to why a sudden seemingly random and out of place mention of Mary fleeing Herod is symbolically presented in the book of Revelation. Even the fact that Jesus is only called “the male child” highlights the male children. I’m not saying that the 144,000 are little children in the time of Revelation, but they may be sent as resurrected souls as witnesses to the world. Or they could just be the firstfruits of Christians. But again, they are all males, all virgins, never spoke a lie and completely blameless. Such adult humans who lived a full life would be hard to find, let alone 144,000 of them from all the tribes of Israel! So wether this is their identity or not, I can’t say for sure… But I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if God reserved them for this very special purpose as pure souls to demonstrate the protection of God on those who love Him! What do you think about this?

        Okay, so now I’m going to give you a lot more than you asked for, but you just happened to ask me a question regarding Bible prophecy which is as much as a passion to me as studying the Bible in Hebrew! 🙂 So I’m compelled to share some interesting things about the book of Revelation and I hope you find them fascinating too. Since I was 12 years old I’ve been studying this book and have read it countless times and I’d love to share what I’ve gathered. But it should first be noted that the order of events in Revelation (after the letters to the 7 churches) are the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets then the 7 bowls. But if you study all of Scripture, it seems that the end of our human earthly age ends after the last trumpet…. But this doesn’t make sense when the bowls are after this… In addition, after the 7th trumpet, it talks about the wrath in past tense as if it already happened, but the 7 bowls of wrath still follow in the chapters… So my conclusion (based on more than just this one fact) is that the 7 trumpets and 7 bowls happen in close proximity together, the trumpet being the initial “blow” (quite literally), and the bowl being the after-affect (so it may go 1st trumpet-bowl, 2nd trumpet-bowl, etc.). Although the last trumpet seems to be the last event and is hand-in-hand with the last bowl, as it describes the same things. There are also striking similarities that can be noted within each trumpet and bowl judgement, and as mentioned before, the book of Revelation itself talks about origins before it talks about the last trumpet and 7 bowls. So Revelation 6-11 appears chronological with a “break” about origins between chapters 12-14, then it appears to start over from the time of the wrath from chapters 15-16. After this it may talk about things that occur at some point during these judgments such as the fall of Mystery Babylon in chapters 17-18, then talks about the physical return of Yeshua (Jesus) to the earth and the new heaven and earth, etc. in chapters 19-22.

        To make this all more clear, I will provide an outline of how I see the book. But before I do there’s just one more thing noteworthy to mention. If there is a rapture of the church, it appears to happen at the 6th seal. We are not appointed to God’s wrath, so I believe we would not be subject to these events in the 7th seal and 7 trumpets and 7 bowls. However, this does not mean we won’t go through the tribulation and in fact are warned that we would experience tribulation in our lives, so I don’t think this bars us from “the tribulation.” Plus there’s an awful lot of Christians being beheaded in the tribulation. Most call it a 7 year tribulation, but I think Revelation suggests that the tribulation and God’s wrath are 2 different things, but all together both combined last for 7 years starting with the antichrists confirming of the 7 year covenant. “The tribulation” is like Satan’s wrath on believers and “the Wrath” is God’s wrath on those who reject Him and worship the antichrist. So my position would be called a “post-trib/pre-wrath rapture” and I think the Scriptures are strikingly clear of this, especially considering that Jesus Himself said “immediately after the tribulation” the sun will be darkened and the moon to blood and the stars fall and at that point He will gather His elect “from the 4 winds.” (Read all in comparison to Matthew 24:29-31 and the 6th seal in Revelation 6:12-17.) There’s only one spot where there’s the dark sun and blood moon with stars falling, and it comes at the 6th seal and directly after it talks about “a multitude appearing in Heaven” who had “come out of the great tribulation!”

        Here is my outline of how I see the order of events for the Apocalypse in the book of Revelation. Please read the Book for yourself, as this is just an outline of what I’ve gathered from my studies and is in no way to be seen as comprehensive:

        -START OF TRIBULATION-
        1) Antichrist confirms the 7 year covenant with many concerning Israel
        [Daniel 9:27]
        2) 1st seal – antichrist goes forth to conquer (white horse)
        [Revelation 6:1-2]
        3) 2nd seal – peace taken from the earth; murder and wars (red horse)
        [Rev. 6:3-4]
        4) 3rd seal – world economic collapse (black horse)
        [Rev. 6:5,6]
        5) 4th seal – 1/4 death by famine, sword, pestilence, wild beasts (pale horse)
        [Rev. 6:7,8]
        6) 5th seal – martyrs in heaven ask how long until God avenges their blood and He tells them to “wait a little while longer.”
        [Rev. 6:9-11]

        KEY EVENT
        7) 6th seal – earthquake, sun darkened, blood moon, stars fall
        [Rev. 6:12-17, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24,25, Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20]
        7A) Before the 4 winds are stopped, the 144,000 are sealed from the wrath on the earth [Rev. 7:1-8]
        7B) Rapture? Multitude of believers suddenly appear in Heaven, said to have come out of the great tribulation, the earth knows the “day of wrath” has arrived and hide underground
        [Rev. 7:9-17, Rev. 14:14-16, Mat. 24:30,31, Mark 13:26,27, 1 Thes. 4:13-18, 1 Thes. 5:9, 2 Thes. 2:1-4]
        7C) second mention of possible rapture “harvest” followed by the gathering of unbelievers to wrath (note that the 144,000 are mentioned again directly before this “harvest,” showing its similarity to their first mention before the multitude appearing in Heaven.) [Rev. 14:14-20]

        -END OF “THE GREAT TRIBULATION” ; BEGINNING OF THE WRATH-
        8) 7th seal – silence in Heaven for a half hour, censer of prayers thrown to the earth; thunder, lightning, earthquake
        [Rev. 8:1-6]

        EARTH:
        9A) 1st trumpet – hail and fire mixed with blood on the earth – 1/3 of earth burns [Rev. 8:7]
        9B) 1st bowl – poured upon the earth. result: people with the mark get harmful and painful sores [Rev. 16:2]

        SEA:
        10A) 2nd trumpet – “mountain” cast into the sea, 1/3 sea turns to blood [Rev. 8:8,9]
        10B) 2nd bowl – poured upon the sea. Result: whole sea turns to blood, everything dies [Rev. 16:3]

        RIVERS:
        11A) 3rd trumpet – “burning star” falls on 1/3 of rivers and springs, Wormwood poisons water- you drink, you die [Rev. 8:10,11]
        11B) 3rd bowl – poured upon rivers and springs. Result: rivers and springs turn to blood, you drink, you die [Rev. 16:4-7]

        SUN:
        12A) 4th trumpet – sun struck, moon struck, stars struck, 1/3 of the day and night without light [Rev. 8:12]
        12B) 4th bowl – poured upon sun. Result: sun allowed to scorch people with fire [Rev. 16:8,9, refer to the saved-Rev. 7:16]

        DARKNESS AND PAIN
        13A) 5th trumpet – bottomless pit opened causing black smoke and locust/scorpion creatures come out of it only to harm those who have not been sealed for 5 months. They seek death due to the extreme pain of the stings, but cannot die. [Rev. 9:1-12] (first woe)
        13B) 5th bowl – poured upon the throne of the Beast. Result: darkness and people gnaw their tongues from their pain and agony and curse God [Rev.16:10,11]

        EUPHRATES
        14A) 6th trumpet – 4 Angels released from the River Euphrates to kill 1/3 mankind, 200,000,000 troops, 3 plagues-fire, smoke, sulfur [Rev. 9:13-21] (second woe)
        14B) 6th bowl – poured upon Euphrates. Result: Euphrates dries up to make way for the assembled troops for the battle of Armageddon [Rev. 16:12-16]

        SECRET EVENT
        15) the 7 thunders – sealed up and not written down [rev. 10:3-6]

        THE LAST JUDGMENT
        16A) 7th trumpet – thunderings, hail, earthquake: God’s Temple revealed [Rev. 11:15-19, note Rev. 11:18 past tense “wrath came,” present tense “heaven is opened,” present tense “mystery of God complete.”] (third woe)
        16B) 7th bowl – poured into the air. Result: Thunderings, heavy hail, biggest earthquake ever [Rev. 16:17-21, note Rev. 16:17 “it is finished.”]

        17) Marriage supper of the Lamb (unknown timing, may happen at rapture or after 7th trumpet) [Rev. 19:6-9]
        18) Return of Yeshua to the earth [Rev. 19:11-16]
        19) battle of Armageddon, all enemies slain but the antichrist and false prophet who are thrown alive into the Lake of Fire [Rev. 16:16, 19:11-21]
        20) 1,000 year rein of King Yeshua on earth [Rev. 20:1-6]
        31) Satan released for a short time again after the 1,000 years have ended, final defeat of Satan, Gog and Magog war [Rev. 20:7-10]
        21) Great white throne Judgment [Rev. 20:11-15]
        22) New Heaven and New Earth [Rev. 21]
        23) New Jerusalem, the tree of life and the river of life [Rev 21-22]

        ADDITIONAL NOTES OF IMPORTANCE:

        DESTRUCTION OF MYSTERY BABYLON (UNKNOWN TIMING):
        Destruction of Mystery Babylon-(unknown timing due to chapter placement), but it appears that the antichrist gains his world dominance after destroying it with the help of 10 other leaders/nations who rule with him “with one mind” for 1 hour and then hand over all power to him. Her destruction comes all at once in 1 hour and the rest of the earth mourns (as she was the world’s superpower) and merchants watch her smoke rise from ships in the sea, so this probably happens before the collapse of commerce. (I hope this isn’t the U.S.!) [Rev. 14:8, Rev. 17-18,19:1-5, Jeremiah 50-51]

        THE 2 WITNESSES (EITHER THE 1ST OR 2ND HALF OF 7 YEARS)
        Mention of the 2 witnesses (probably Enoch and Elijah or Moses and Elijah) who prophesy for 1,260 days, then killed, 3 1/2 days later resurrected and taken to Heaven, followed by an earthquake that kills 7,000 people [Rev 11:1-14]

        ORIGINS DESCRIBED BETWEEN 7 TRUMPETS & 7 BOWLS
        The virgin birth of a male child, dragon pursues and fails [Rev. 12:1-6] satan thrown to earth [Rev. 12:7-17] beast (antichrist) described [Rev. 13:1-10] false prophet and image and mark of the beast described [Rev 13:11-18] description of the 144,000 in heaven [Rev. 14:1-5] harvest from the earth previously mentioned [Rev. 14:14-20]

        Thanks again for your question! I hope this helped make things more clear and hope you enjoyed it, as I enjoyed sharing it! 🙂 Let me know what you think!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 15, 2015 at 3:15 am

        To anyone who’s interested,
        I discovered something pretty big in regards to the Hebrew translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that could “seal the deal” with it being connected to idol worship. I’ve not heard or read anyone else talk about what I found today and I would love to get your thoughts…. https://moanti.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/huge-new-discovery-that-shows-further-evidence-that-leviticus-1822-and-2013-are-not-condemning-homosexiality-must-read/ (Unfortunately I was so exited and in a hurry to post this that I misspelled homosexuality! 😛 Whoops! Haha!) Also FYI for anyone who gets new posts sent to their inbox, I’ve added a few things which can be accessed through the link above.

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 15, 2015 at 4:35 pm

        To everyone,
        After further investigation, I’ve decided to pull my last post. It seems although אשה means both “woman” and “sacrificial offering,” it’s context in all other verses suggests it’s an offering made by fire, even though the 1970’s Strong says “properly a burnt offering, but occasionally any sacrifice.” So this “occasional” ANY sacrifice could still maybe apply, but I think it needs more investigating and so far it seems too tied to fire… Then again, the idol Molech was specifically tied to fire, so it is still a possible. But I think it’s more questionable now… So please except my sincere apologies for posting too hastily! 😦
        -Moanti

  112. John R says:
    August 16, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    Hi Moanti,

    I’ve done a little more research on Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, and WOW the translators take a LOT of liberty with the translation.

    Maybe you already know this, but the word mishkab is ALWAYS used as a noun, meaning “place of lying.” This word is used to describe couches, beds, and even graves (lying in death). When the word want to use the word sexually, it’s almost always explicit, such as in Ezekiel 23:17.

    “They came to her on mishkab of endearments/love”.

    It can also be used as an implicit sexual term, such as in Gen 49:4, which refers to when Reuben slept with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, in Gen 35:22.

    You are destructive like water and will not excel, for you got on your father’s mishkab, then you defiled it – he got on my couch!
    Genesis 49:4 NET

    Here, when Joseph says that Reuben “got on his father’s mishkab,” it is used as a euphemism for saying essentially that Reuben had sex with his father’s bed-mates, which in this case was Bilhah.

    So when we look at the translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it is absolutely unfair and incorrect to translate mishkab as the verb “as one lies with.” There is not a single other verse in the OT that uses the noun mishkab in that way, and it shows a clear interpretational agenda. (Again, you probably know this already, but bear with me)

    So what I think would be a better literal translation for 18:22 would be is this:

    With (denoting physical proximity or association with) male you shall not lie place-of-lying of woman.

    The common interpretations are that this is prohibiting a man from having sex with another man as one would lie with a woman, or that it is prohibiting only homosexual sex in an idol worshipping context. But I wonder if perhaps other interpretations might make more sense.

    For example, if we think of three people involved instead of two (you, a male, and a woman), then this is simply prohibiting devil’s threesomes because they would constitute adultery in the Jewish thinking. However, this is problematic if we look at the punishment in Lev 20:13, where only two people are punished. It would seem that this is describing sex between only two people. I’ve already mentioned in an earlier comment that I think the punishment in 20:13 could easily have originally referred to all three people in the devil’s threesome, as the word “two of them” could be a later scribal addition and that the rest of the verse would still read just fine without it. But there’s another theory I just thought of that doesn’t require dismissing this verse.

    If we look at Gen 49:4, we see that getting into a specific person’s mishkab has the force of saying that you’re having sex with that person’s bed-mates. After all, a “place of lying” can be a person when having sex, as you literally lie on top of someone usually! When we interpret Lev. 18:22 using this usage of mishkab, we have an interesting interpretation (“You” will refer to a male)

    You lie in a woman’s mishkab, or bed. But this is used as a euphemism, not necessarily literally. Just like Reuben “getting on” his father’s bed refers to Reuben having sex with his father’s concubine/wife, here it would refer to you lying with the woman’s husband, since it is her “place of lying” that you are lying in.

    This would mean that the male that you are lying with is actually the woman’s husband. This, therefore, would only prohibit a male having sex with someone who is heterosexual and married already, perhaps because sex was viewed as a domination thing back then.

    It is pretty clear from Lev. 20:13 that this act was usually a consensual thing, since it says that both men were killed, but from references to rape in other cases (Deut 22:23-27) we can assume that if a husband was raped, he would not be killed as he would be guilty of “no sin worthy of death.”

    So what the verse would better read as today is this:

    “You shall not lie with a woman’s husband, this is abomination.”

    Or more literally, using the euphemism:

    “You shall not lie with a male (who is the) mishkab (bed-mate) of woman”

    Definitely not an outright ban on make homosexuality! One can easily see why this would be considered a sinful act. Essentially, this would prohibit homosexual adultery for men. For women, it is likely that there is no overt prohibition against a wife of one man having sex with the wife of another man because women weren’t considered to even be capable of homosexual sex. Like the Greco-Romans, perhaps the Hebrews believed that sex was defined more by penetration than sexual pleasure. A woman has no penis and so cannot have sex with another woman.

    This isn’t to say that the Hebrews were unaware of lesbian sex. Just that they didn’t consider it sinful or even worth mention in the OT writings. It would be the equivalent of masturbation perhaps, which also received no mention. While it is important, it is largely consequence free, as far as diseases and baby-making goes, so there was no need to promote or prohibit it.

    So this raises a question on David and Jonathan’s relationship. If it is true that a man was not supposed to have sex with a husband and that David and Jonathan had sex, then David committed a mortal sin long before he met Bathsheba because David was married when he met Jonathan! Of course, this problem can be solved in a couple of ways.

    The first way is to simply say that David and Jonathan didn’t have sex. Simple enough.

    The second way is to consider the fact that David, and in fact the Hebrews during that time period in general, were somewhat ignorant of certain prohibitions in the Mosaic law, such as incest (2 Samuel 13, Tamar mentions how David would allow Amnon to marry her even though they were brother and sister). Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are smack dab in the middle of all of the sexual prohibitions that David seemed unaware of. So what we must consider, and what some scholars say is likely, is that SOME of the 600-ish laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were added after David and Solomon’s time as an extrapolation and amplification of the 10 commandments.

    In this case, we could say that perhaps the laws outside of the 10 commandments hold less weight because they are human interpretations of the 10 commandments, and that the punishments prescribed to adulterers, murderers, and perhaps those who sleep with heterosexual husbands, etc, are of human origin, and not God’s.

    This is the interpretation I prefer because it harmonizes much better with Jesus’ statements about how we shouldn’t take an eye for an eye, but turn the other cheek. The 10 commandments, if you’ll notice, have no punishment prescribed to them directly. Perhaps they were never supposed to. After all, disobeying the 10 commandments leads to its own punishment, as society is harmed directly by your actions.

    Anywho, let me know what you think!

    Best,

    John R

    P.S. I’m eager to see what your new article looks like. I saw that it would have a connection to the word for woman and the word for burnt sacrifice (same consonants, different vowels), but I dunno what connection you made out of that. Hope your research goes well!
    P.P.S. Perhaps this interpretation could shed some light on Paul’s made-up term, arsenokoitai, as man-beds could imply the same euphemism I am using. It would refer to someone who lies with a man’s bed-mates, or more simply, an adulterer. Or perhaps it would refer to a man who lies in the beds of wives, meaning a man who lies with heterosexual husbands, which would tie directly into this verse.

    Reply
    • John R says:
      August 16, 2015 at 1:12 pm

      One typo: “when the word want the word to be used sexually” should be “when the writers want the word”

      Reply
      • John R says:
        August 16, 2015 at 1:19 pm

        Also, “definitely not an outright ban on make homosexuality” should be “male homosexuality”

    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      August 16, 2015 at 5:40 pm

      Hello John R!
      It is fantastic to know that you are searching this out and can see how the Levtitical verses are not as clear as they appear in their traditional translation. It’s true that the translators took some major liberty, as one of the first red flags I first noticed was the lack of this comparative language. “As with” or “like as” a woman cannot be the proper translation of mishkab and I am so glad that you see this! People usually think I’m lying when I tell them this, but it’s usually because Interlinear bibles will place “like as” under mishkab, but until you click on the word (or look it up), you would never know that it’s not at all as it seems and is in fact the noun “bed” or as you said, “place of lying.”

      I think your translation is quite possible, as either way it seems to condemn a particular form of homosexuality, but not condemning all homosexual relationships. Another possibility is that it’s not even talking about any homosexual act. Let me explain. Remember how you’ve mentioned before that one has to be married to commit adultery? It usually is worded committing adultery AGAINST your wife…. Well what would one call it if an unmarried virgin male had sex with someone else’s wife? The wife would commit adultery against her husband, but the unmarried man would be committing an bad act against the married man for using his property. Not necessarily “adultery” because he’s not married, but rather using another man’s wife who isn’t his own property. So if the unmarried man is committing an act against the married man, then the wording of both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 would make sense. But first it should be known that “woman” can also be rendered as “wife” and the word translated “with” is actually most accurately translated as “against.” Let me show you the most common wordings for this with connector words in parenthesis:
      “Against any man do not lie (in the) bed (of his) wife.” (Lev 18:22)
      “A man that lies against any man (in the) bed (of his) wife, an abomination 2 have committed….” (lev. 20:13)
      So as you can see, in Leviticus 20:13, the 2 who would be guilty would be the unmarried man and the married woman, and in both verses the crime would be committed against the married man. I can’t really find another verse in the Bible that is specific against an unmarried man with a married woman. It talks about committing adultery with a neighbors wife, but when we look closer we see that the word for “neighbor” actually indicates someone that you know personally and is often translated as “friend.” So if the Levitical passages are rendered in this way instead of being some man that you know, then it is committing a crime against “any man” who has a wife who doesn’t belong to them. So this could count for some man that you never even met. Another thing too is that mishkab can be seen as a marriage bed when we regard the context in which its used. Some scholars have even said it means “marriage bed.” So this would be even more clear, as “against any man do not lie in the marriage bed of his wife.” Also the fact that “shakab” is always used in the context of either rape, coerced sex, or a deceptive sex act behind another persons back gives more credence to this idea because this would definitely be a deceptive act to have sex with another man’s wife. It could still apply to a married man with another married man’s wife, but it would seem that the act is committed against the man in this case and is not considered adultery to them specifically because they aren’t married to commit adultery against their non-existent spouse. Either way, this possible translation requires less implied presumption and less filler words and no change in original meaning. So it could actually be more direct and authentic than the traditional translation. What do you think of this?

      Unfortunately I pulled my last article down because I feel it needs more research and it has less likelihood of being accurate after looking at the context used in all other verses. But I’ll still explain it to you briefly here. I got an old copy of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and discovered that the word used for woman in Leviticus is אשה and there are actually 3 “words” with these exact Hebrew letters. They actually did have the same syllables in the 1970’s version for the 2 words in question, but the newer Strong’s (and online edition) have changed them to be different syllables. The word in question (אשה) was defined as “in the liturgical sense; a burnt offering; but sometimes any sacrifice or offering.” So liturgical is “a public act of worship” and if it is any sacrifice of offering, than the verse could be translated as: “against a man do not coerce sex in a bed for the sacrifice/offering…” This would really give phenomenal support to it talking about acts of shrine prostitution, especially considering that verse 21 before it talks against sacrificing one’s seed to Molech. But the problem I found with this is that every other verse I could find that used this word was always referring to “a sacrifice made by fire.” So I can’t see how this could be relatable to the sacrifice of semen to the idols, other than the fact that Molech is specifically connected to fire. What do you think? Do you think it could be the exception because of Molech’s connection to fire? The 1970’s Strong’s does say it could “occasionally” be “any sacrifice or offering,” but I couldn’t find where in the online interlinear on biblehub, so I don’t know if they just removed it, or if it’s misleading somehow…

      I guess what we’ve learned today is that there are MANY different ways to translate these Levitical verses, and some with major contrast in meaning! Either way, the traditional translation is seriously lacking and misleading when comparative language is completely absent from the original Text and you need this comparison to even imagine it could have anything to do with homosexual sex. All it truly says is “against man no lie bed woman/wife.” If you were to read that with no preconceived ideas about homosexuality, would you even think it would be possible to mean gay sex? To me it sounds like it could be talking about some form of heterosexual sexual sin, but I’ve never shown this on my website because I think people would freak out even more for me to depart from the traditional homosexuality aspect. But looking back to early church fathers, several (who I’d have to look up again) translated the Levitical verses as referring to shrine prostitution. So I feel like they probably know better than we do since it was their native language. Either way, the fact that there is not a verse following it that condemns lesbian sex should say something in and of itself since the bestiality verses condemn it with a man and then also with a woman.

      I once met an Orthodox Jewish woman in college who told me that they did not see any sin in lesbian pairing, but only saw homosexuality in males as a sin; not because of the act itself, but because men in the Torah were directly commanded to procreate. The women weren’t given this command, only the men. So they saw that women had a choice wether to procreate since they weren’t commanded, so lesbian relationships are not forbidden according to them. I’m not sure all Orthodox Jews feel this way, but this is how she was taught.

      So thanks again for looking into this and thanks for the possible translation. Perhaps one day I will write an entire blog post about these different possible translations. Let me know if you can think of anything else. I leave this option open to anyone who would like to make an attempt. Here are the verses from the interlinear Bible for reference, but be sure to click on each word and compare each contextual meaning in which they are used. I also recommend looking up each word in the search window, as sometimes they are the same words separated for reference as a different word, just as I explained about the 3 same words for “אשה.”
      http://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/18-22.htm
      http://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/20-13.htm

      Your sister in Christ,
      Moanti

      Reply
      • John R says:
        August 17, 2015 at 10:34 pm

        I think an article detailing every possible translation, along with their unbiased pros and cons, would be fantastic! Such a list was instrumental for me on the subject of lust and its sinfulness or lack thereof. BTW the word for lust is used more times as a positive than a negative in the Bible. But the translators don’t want you to know that, so when it’s used as a positive, most often they translate it as desire instead of lust. Same with covet. Both were originally neutral terms that are only good or bad in context.

        Anywho, back on topic. I think you might want to do a little more research on the Hebrew thinking on adultery, because my understanding is this: you can’t commit adultery if neither parties are married. BUT! If the woman is married, then it is always adultery, even if the man is not married. Conversely, if the man is married and the woman is not, then it isn’t adultery, it is simply sex that requires the two to marry (Deut 22:28-29).

        It’s a bit of a double standard that is inevitable in a polygamous society.

        So when I said you can’t commit adultery if you’re not married, I meant if NEITHER parties are married. I’m surprised you remembered that though :P. Thanks for paying attention to my rambling.

        Now as far as your interpretation goes, here’s what I think. I haven’t considered that it might be talking about heterosexual adultery, so it’s really interesting! But what I’m a bit concerned about with the interpretation is that it relies on a particular meaning of the word “against.” Against can mean either “to be next to in proximity,” such as “I lay against the wall.” Or it can mean “to oppose,” such as “I will fight against my opponent.”

        You are using the second definition of against in your interpretation, while I used the first definition. That’s why I used the word “with” to avoid confusion. I’m just wondering if the original word could also have this double meaning, or if it always meant “to be next to.” The concordances I looked at seem to all confirm that the first definition, denoting proximity, is the only definition of the original word “eth,” but take a look for yourself.

        http://www.biblehub.com/hebrew/854.hrm

        What this could mean for your interpretation is that you could still construe the verse to be talking about heterosexual sex, but it would have to be two men having sex with a woman, or a devil’s threesome. However, since only two people were put to death in Lev 20:13, we would have to say that this is assuming a rape scenario, which goes along with your shakab theory.

        The verse would read:

        “And along with another of mankind do not lie (in the) marriage bed of woman/wife.”

        I suppose you still could argue that the second definition of against, to oppose, is still denoting proximity, so your interpretation would make sense, but I’ll leave that up to you. I guess it would look something like this:

        “I commit adultery against you.” Would more literally look like “I commit adultery in proximity/in relation to you.” It’s awkward, but literal meanings often are. So then, your interpretation would literally look like:

        “In relation to mankind, do not lie in the marriage bed of woman.”

        I would say this is a redundant interpretation, as we already have several verses condemning heterosexual adultery, but you brought up a good point that this could be specifically prohibiting adultery with those who are not your neighbor, as every other verse talks about not committing adultery against your neighbor.

        Either way, I think both of our interpretational attempts are more true to the text and require less presumption than the traditional interpretation. So far, I think the one with the least issues is the one I mentioned that uses the Gen. 49:4 euphemism of mishkab.

        The reason I say this is because it is the least redundant interpretation, as yours seems to simply cite an expansion of adultery, and the devil’s threesome interpretation has the issue that Lev. 20:13 says that only 2 people sinned in that scenario.

        Also, it may still refer to Molech worship. If one is prohibited from having sex with a heterosexual husband, perhaps it is because a heterosexual husband would only have homosexual sex if he were performing a fertility ritual to Molech. But it is not necessarily referring to idol worship. Perhaps having homosexual sex with a wife’s husband is bad enough on its own, in Hebrew thinking.

        Btw, you should check out this interlinear Bible that I use. It’s generally more honest about word translations and has entire chapters at a time. The downside is that the concordance numbers aren’t there, so I use Biblehub’s interlinear Bible if I need a specific Hebrew word.

        http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
        http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

        Best,

        John R

      • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
        August 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm

        Dear Gary and John R,
        I want to apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I have yet to read your new comments, as I have been laid up with a work injury and have been unable to do much at all. I am using a speech to text app at the moment, but will write to you as soon as I am feeling up to it. I always enjoy your comments! Thanks for everything!
        Your sister in Christ,
        Moanti

      • John R says:
        August 18, 2015 at 8:10 am

        Oh, just read the last bit of your reply again.

        With regards to the woman-sacrifice idea, I think it’s interesting that the original Strong’s Concordance said it could be used for any sacrifice. I wonder if they used the Lev 18:22 and 20:13 verses as evidence for sacrifice that didn’t directly involved fire… Or perhaps they looked at the Apocrypha and saw that the word was used for general sacrifice sometimes. It might be worth looking into.

        I also think it’s not being the realm of plausibility that the fact that Molech was a fire God could point to the fact that these verses are pointing to Molech worship. Perhaps when having homosexual intercourse for Molech, they would extract the seed and throw it into the fire as sacrifice for fertility. Or something along those lines. Who knows?

  113. Gary says:
    August 18, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    John R and Moanti,

    I think it might be interesting to take a look at Luther’s 1522 German Bible. He translated arsenokoites.as Knabenschander which literally means “boy-shamer.” Since little has changed in the German language in 500 years, it’s interesting to see how words were translated into German from the Septuagint and Textus Receptus, the meaning which has not changed since the translation 500 years ago. The German Bible has it’s own interesting history. The Septuagint and Textus Receptus is also the source of all English Bibles

    Reply
  114. Gary says:
    August 19, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    I think it’s also interesting to note that Luther, in translating Leviticus 18:22:

    Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.

    Which translates to “Thou shall not with boys lie as with woman, then it is an abomination.”

    It’s interesting that he uses boys instead of men or man. Why boys? What was he getting at? Is this a reference to him assuming that boys were used in idol worship?

    Reply
    • John R says:
      August 20, 2015 at 2:56 pm

      Hi Gary,

      That’s very interesting! I didn’t know that Martin Luthor translated them as “boys.” Perhaps that is also in the Latin Vulgate Bible, and so he was simply going off of tradition?

      From what I understand, the early church fathers took those verses, Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 to have to do with homosexuality, but they always interpreted it to mean “boys” as well, up until the 5th century. This is a fact that most people leave out when they mention “every church father condemned homosexuality!” This interpretation can be explained by remembering that in the early centuries in Rome, homosexuality was almost always practiced as pedastery, with an older, dominant man and submissive boys of 12-17. The question I have is, if they thought all homosexuality was sinful, why they didn’t just say males with males and catch all kinds of homosexual sin. It’s like forbidding only serial murder, but not other kinds of murder.

      Perhaps Martin Luthor had similar thoughts.

      Another curious omission from the Bible is the fact that, in our current translations, pedastery is never condemned. Martin Luther’s translation seems to condemn it by translating arsenokoitai to boy-shamer. But that only accounts for man-boy relationships. What about man-girl relationships?

      We can determine that the Israelites had a cultural idea about when a woman was ready to marry by the words in Ezekiel 16, where God speaks metaphorically of his marriage to Israel. He mentions that Israel reached puberty, then some time later, she reached the “age of love.” Love here has strong connotations of sexual love, as seen in Song of Solomon and Proverbs.

      So then, from this we know that the Israelites expected a woman to go past puberty a few years before having sex. And there is historical evidence that even if a man married a young woman of 14-15, they would not have sex until she was at an age where she could be expected to survive childbirth. So the age of love is the age at which a woman could survive childbirth, or about 16-18 and up. We could take this and apply it to boys to determine at what age it would not be okay to have sex with a boy, which is about up to 16 ish.

      This is all just conjecture, so take all this musing with a grain of salt. I think all these ages of love would be somewhat culturally based. In a primitive culture, though, these ages sound somewhat reasonable.

      Something that is a bit troublesome when translating zakar as boys in these verses, instead of mankind/males, is that Lev. 20:13 executes the two males. If this is coerced or deceptive sex, as Moanti says it must be, then why kill the boy? If they are condemning pedastery with these verses, then it seems odd to kill the boy as the boy would likely not have had much choice in the matter…. I dunno. They killed disobedient children anyways, so I guess this isn’t really much different. Perhaps they meant “the two shall be put to death if it is consensual.” And if it was rape, then they would only kill the man.

      In this case, Shakab would not necessarily mean sex that is deceptive or coerced, but simply wrongful, harmful, or shameful “lying” or sex. Deceptive and coerced sex is always wrongful, harmful, and/or shameful, but it is the harm in it that makes it “Shakab” instead of.. Whatever the word for rightful lying is haha. I’m no Hebrew expert.

      The translation would be:

      “And man shall not shamefully lie with boys (who are the) bed(mates)s of woman.”

      Probably not…

      Or

      “And man shall not shamefully lie with boys (in the) beds of woman.”

      OR, perhaps “male beds of woman” is yet another colloquialism lost to time, which we might translate as:

      “And man shall not shamefully lie with (young) males (who still sleep in the) beds of woman”

      In other words, perhaps “male mishkab woman” meant a young boy who would still crawl into bed with his mother, like boys will do after having a nightmare. It could have been a common understood phrase at the time this book was written, in which case, this is condemning SUPER pedastery, like with boys from 4-10. Eugh.

      But again, why would the boy be killed here? Even if he agreed to the sex, it seems odd that the boy would die for it, because can you really expect a boy to know the full meaning of sex at that age? But again, there’s a law to stone unruly children, and laws about putting the evil from the land, so perhaps this was not as radical as we see it today.

      Reply
      • Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
        October 29, 2015 at 11:33 am

        ” They killed disobedient children anyways, so I guess this isn’t really much different.”

        I appreciate that you are leaving the door open for possible idiomatic meanings in various phrases you discussed. However, the above caught my eye because it is something many Bible-readers claim without much thought to digging deeper. Did ancient Israel kill disobedient children in obedience to Torah Law?

        It depends upon what one means by “children”. In English “my children” can include my grown adult sons and daughters—though somewhat awkwardly depending on the context. But many of the passages people cite as evidence of capital punishment for “children” were actually dealing with rebellious, full-grown (but probably unmarried) young men. Bible-bashers often cite God’s judgment of the “children” disrespectful of God’s prophet by calling him “Ol’ baldy”. Yet newer translations usually avoid that misinterpretation. (Yes, this is another area where King James Bible translators had very limited lexicographic resources and these are some of the misinterpretations which resulted.)

        We’ve seen a similar problem and mythology develop around what has long been called “The Children’s Crusade”, caused by a misunderstood, very old French word that actually referred to what were mostly “street toughs” and grown teenagers, including lots of homeless young adult men who had no prospects for marriage and property.

        I’m encouraged to see so many posts here where people are genuinely trying to engage the technical details of the Biblical texts. Not all forums show this kind of aiming towards depth of understanding. I’m not saying that everything posted in the comments hits the nail squarely on the head, but I see a lot of sincere and excellent “digging” to unearth as much meaningful information as possible. Also, for the most part a lot of mutual respect and courtesy is extended towards those with differing views. Obviously, this is sadly missing from a lot of Internet forums where believers gather. (Equally obviously, a lot of the credit should go to Moanti for maintaining a respectful atmosphere amid a lot of very controversial topics which regularly break out in full scale war in countless forums. That’s one of the reasons I’ve found myself interested in this website and browsing it when I’m between tasks.)

  115. Gary says:
    August 20, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    Hi John R,

    I don’t think Luther followed the Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate seems to indicate a man in Leviticus 18:22:
    Cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est.

    I don’t know Latin, but it looks like “with man not have sex/commiserate in the bed of a woman, it’s an abomination.”

    But the earliest English Bible, the Wycliffe Bible of the late 1300s, seems to say something different:
    Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun.

    “Thou shall not be muddled/mixed/confused with a man by the letchery of woman, for it is abomination.”

    Or as JJW Baker states: The idea is that one becomes contaminated by sex with a woman who has sex with many men.

    And the Luther Bible says something different:
    Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel.

    “Thou shall not with boys lie as with woman, then it is an abomination.”

    It’s all different.

    After a while, it starts to seem like word-salad or a word Rorschach test: God inspired the original Levite priests to write a bunch of words on paper and let people figure out later on what it means.
    I think it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.

    Geez, if God wanted men not to sleep together, you’d think he would have just come out and said it clearly!

    Reply
  116. Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
    October 30, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    I keep getting “Sorry, this comment could not be posted.”

    Reply
  117. Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
    October 30, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    That single sentence post worked but I’ve been unsuccessful in posting any of my other comments today.

    Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      October 30, 2015 at 8:30 pm

      Hi Professor,
      Sorry I haven’t been able to reply to your last comment. I’m out running errands right now, but wanted you to know that I haven’t received anything from you today aside from these 2 sentences, so there are no pending comments from you on my end… Try to copy the comment and paste it in a new window and see if it works? I’m not sure why it’s not working. I’ve never had anyone report that to me before….

      Reply
    • moanti (moe·on·tee) says:
      October 30, 2015 at 8:52 pm

      I’m not aware of any restrictions of character amounts, but perhaps you could also try posting your comment into 2 comments (by splitting them) and see if that works. I apologize that you’re experiencing trouble. Perhaps there’s an issue with WordPress today. I haven’t received any other comments from anyone aside from your 2 that you just posted.

      Reply
      • Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
        October 31, 2015 at 9:03 am

        Here is one of my replies which failed yesterday:

        John R. asked: Also, what do you think of the word “fornication”? The KJV writers translated porneia as fornication, but . . . // . . .Basically, it was any illicit sexual activity, so it’s specific application depended on the context. Would you say that “sexual immorality” is a better translation in today’s English?

        Speaking in general, something I’m always cautious about doing, especially when dealing in different languages and cultures separated by thousands of years, I would say yes. Sexual immorality is unlikely to mislead or misrepresent. I also consider it wise to keep in mind the culture’s focus on suitability for marriage and the idea that one could be tainted based on past conduct, even if the person considered for marriage was a victim and not willfully responsible for the serious “defect”. (Obviously, nowadays we hear of this in many of the horrific details of the crimes against humanity by ISIS and other fundamentalist Islamic elements.)

        Biblical lexicography, especially on the “popular level” where radio preachers and other “Christian celebrities” help sustain horrible erroneous “exegetical factoids” which scholars abandoned or dismissed long ago. (e.g., “three-kinds-of-love sermons where “only Spirit-led Christians can love with AGAPAO love!”) So your caution with PORNEIA is wise. And such caution is all the more appropriate when we recognize that we are all subject at one time or another to “goal-driven exegesis”, where we can very easily convince ourselves that we see in the Biblical text that which we wish to see. And that problem can arise easily both for those trying to denounce some practice/behavior/state and for those trying to endorse some practice/behavior/state.

        That being the case, I like to put a spin on the old maxim “Necessity is the mother of invention.” and warn my students that “Necessity is the mother of wishful exegesis.” I used to go a step further and append it with “—and the grandmother of heresy.” But too many Christians have become far too reckless about labelling every idea they don’t like as heresy. And that’s not a good thing to do. It’s also unlikely to encourage unity among Christ-followers.

        So, I’ll think it but not write it.

  118. Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
    October 31, 2015 at 9:12 am

    I’m no longer getting the failure-to-save-message from the WordPress server. The post processes as it should.

    Reply
  119. Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
    October 31, 2015 at 9:22 am

    John R. asked if he could send me a manuscript for review. Before I retired, I received one or two such drafts per month. After retirement, it has dropped off to about a half dozen per year–but I’m still quite backlogged. And my own projects are finding me running behind.

    That said, sometimes I’m able to expedite reviewing a particular manuscript because of its relevance to something else I’m doing or something a colleague is doing. So if you would like to send our monograph as an email attachment–and roll the dice–you can send it to Bible.and.Science.Forum+mss at the Gmail.com domain. (Exactly as shown with the “+” symbol for the username and then the “@” with the domain name.)

    Please do include an appropriate copyright notice so your ownership is clear and easy to find. (That’s always a good practice with anything you produce. It helps resolve any ambiguity arising in the future.)

    Reply
  120. Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius says:
    October 31, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Clearly, whatever was interfering with my posting yesterday has cleared up today. Such mysteries are not unheard of on WordPress and I get the impression (from comments made by various bloggers on WordPress) that mysteries have long been known to come and go as WordPress is updated/modified by its programmers.

    I think I have confirmed that all of my recent posts are now displayed here. (Moanti may wish to delete the test posts.) But if I have missed seeing and replying to any inquiry/request from participants on these threads, feel free to notify me using the primary Bible.and.Science.Forum at Gmail.com email address. For various reasons, I do not utilize the auto-notification features of WordPress.

    [Those who are interested in origins topics, especially our concerns about Young Earth Creationist ministries and their “creation science” claims, will find the BSF blog at https://bibleandscienceforum.wordpress.com/ of possible interest. Indeed, the dangers and damages of “creation science” and especially its harm to the Great Commission and our Christian witness in general has become a major focus of mine in retirement, long after my departure from the “creation science” movement which, sad to say, I helped promote a half century ago as a young professor with more enthusiasm than relevant knowledge. (Of course, I didn’t believe that at the time. I often pause to consider what a time-travelling me of today could possibly say to my young self if I could somehow go back in time and confront that young, idealistic, impassioned science professor who felt called to “expose” the imagined dangers of the Theory of Evolution and “billions of years.”) Today, I feel a moral obligation and a minister’s responsibility before God to help undo at least some of the damage I did in encouraging my audiences to believe the traditions of Young Earth Creationism and the pseudo-science which developed around it after the publication of THE GENESIS FLOOD (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.)

    I mention all of this not only by way of introduction of some of my research interests but because there are lessons to be learned from observing the serious pitfalls of Christians ignoring the scriptural and scientific evidence whenever that evidence conflicts with our long-held traditions and presuppositions-driven hermeneutics. What we’ve observed in the origins debate of the past fifty years can teach us a lot about our own human foibles and the many ways we can so easily cherry-pick evidence (both scripture evidence and scientific evidence) in order to ignore realities we don’t like. The human capacity for selective reason and self-deception comes all too easily–and this fact should remind us always to show humility and grace to one another as Christian brethren. Indeed, the generally respectful, collegial attitude in these blog articles and comment sections led to my spending time here when I have time between various project tasks. I’m not participating here for any particular agenda other than encouraging whatever constructive research methodologies and dialogue I can help foster.

    Of course, anyone with particular interest in origins-topics can post comments and questions at https://bibleandscienceforum.wordpress.com/ or through the aforementioned email address of the Bible.and.Science.Forum. However, discussion of some of the specific failures of Young Earth Creationist hermeneutics can be very instructive for recognizing similar trends, tangents, and errant strategies among various kinds of Christian idealogues in the sexual ethics debates of our day. ]

    Reply
  121. Gary says:
    November 16, 2015 at 8:18 pm

    In a stunning development, Christian Broadcasting Network chairman, televangelist, and one of America’s most influential evangelical figures, Pat Robertson, said today that homosexuality was not the reason Sodom was destroyed, it was pride.

    Here is the video of his statement on The 700 Club:

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-pride-not-homosexuality-was-sin-sodom

    Just amazing.

    Reply
  122. Angela says:
    February 12, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    Hey how do I response to people saying if toevah means something that’s cultural than it’s okay to do it if you don’t do the cultural like bestiality or incest

    Reply

Leave a reply to Anthony Cancel reply