Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

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

Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:

" 'Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.

" 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.

" 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

" 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

" 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

" 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.

" 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

" 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

" 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

" 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

" 'Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

" 'If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

" 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "

He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of fourfooted animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

“Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul– men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 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." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

To my fellow Gaians, especially those who find homosexuals and homosexuality in the wrong:

All over the Extended Discussion and Chatterbox, a wave of pro- and anti-homosexual sentiment has hit. I can understand that the moderators have had it with idiotic threads and "repeats." However, yours truly has something to say of this.

I wish to restate my theory for the error of homophobia, which is as follows:

Homophobic arguments of all sorts - including scientific and psychological - are among the fruits of religious homophobia, which in itself has been caused by, among other things, biblical mistranslation.

Allow me to clarify. This said "biblical mistranslation" is both of willful ignorance and blatant misunderstanding. The Bible and certain passages are loaded with possibilities for mistranslation.

I'd like to elucidate my statements.

1) The "evidence" used by homophobic religious zealots is, in general, a rather unfortunate mistranslation or misinterpretation.
2) There cannot be such a thing as "scientific" homophobia. Such statements reek of religious backing.

Now, I am for gay marriage and all, but that is NOT the point of my paper. If you come into my dissertation thinking that, you are completely in the wrong, my dear friend.

My being Catholic may or may not restrict room for intellectual debate with Catholic doctrine, but being human allows for me, as a human with free thought and free will, to be able to debate with his faith's theological arguments.


"Evidence" vs. Evidence


First off, THE BIBLE WAS NOT ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.

In fact, the languages used in the Old and New Testament are, in respect to time written, Hebrew, Aramaic, and a dialect of Greek called "koine." Note that the Latin translation by St. Jerome was written in the time period between 300 and 550 CE (please excuse my erroneous dating of the event).

People tend to read through the Bible with prejudiced learning (in this case, "I know what it says and means" sort of thinking). However, this sort of doctrinaire prejudice (coined by someone whose name I cannot recall) is wrong in and of itself. We place our own thinking onto something that was not created by our own thinking, but another's. We place modern learning/prejudice onto previous cultures and writings, and use this "interpretation"

In this section, I'll be going through the most often cited verses of the Bible when it comes to homophobic arguments as is noted in the New American Bible. Translations are from various sources, but I will dutifully cite each quote as I can.

---

Now, I need to get this out of my system, but I've heard the phrase "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" so many times that, if it were oil, Iraq wouldn't have needed to invade Kuwait in the early 1990s.

There is SUCH a great deal of illogicality in the assumption that, since the "first" couple on Earth happened to be heterosexual, so should the rest of us. That is about as erroneous as saying all Africans, Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, and so forth are doomed to eternal damnation simply because they don't lack melanin.

Now, Rev. William H Carey encounters a major problem. Quoting:

God said that it was not good for the adam to be alone (Gen. 2:18 ) and went on to say "I will make a help meet for him." (King James Version) But what the Hebrew says here, and the manner in which God made this "help," tell us volumes about the creature He was about to present to the man. The words translated as "help meet" are E-zer k'NEG-do. The word "ezer" means "helper." But there is more to it than that. You see, Hebrew has no neuter gender; every word is either masculine or feminine. Most nouns referring to people have both a masculine form and a feminine form, like "actor" and "actress" in English. Ezer is masculine. The feminine form would be ezrah. But God didn't say He would make an ezrah. He used the masculine form, ezer. The second half of this, k'negdo, means "as opposite him," that is, as a mirror image.

In this case, "the adam" refers to the first man - "Adam," or as this man-creature calls himself more properly, "enosh."

In fact, the creation of "Adam's" companion is significant in itself.

Instead, we find that He took a rib from the man and made the woman from it. This is very significant. From what we now know about genetics, we can understand what God did: Although it sounds frightening to say it, the plain fact is, God cloned another "adam" from the rib. Because the new "adam" was made from the first adam's DNA, she was genetically identical to him in every way. (Was Eve also called Adam? In Genesis 1:27, the Hebrew tells us that "adam" was made both male and female. Genesis 5:1-2 tells us the same thing, and that their name was called "adam." wink When God made this new person, the Hebrew text of Gen. 2:23 tells us that Adam called her "inshah," which is simply the feminine form of enosh. It means "woman."

In fact, the name which is bestowed upon the woman is merely a statement that she is the mother of all humanity - Chavah, or Eve.

In all honesty, it is more likely that "Adam" and "Eve" had no true sexual knowledge until they gained their mortality by eating of the Forbidden Fruit. They were just created, and very likely were curious about the things around them and each other. The "differences" between these two people were bound to show up, but they likely had no idea how to use these "differences" until after the Fall.

---

Certain words for certain phrases, events, people, or emotions are ultimately lost in translation. For instance, there are multiple Hebrew words for "know." Take the example of Sodom and Gomorrah.

This WILL sound ridiculous, but the verse in Genesis (forgive my paraphrasing) basically says, "Let us get to know your visitors." The exact verse is found in Genesis 19. Now some Christians, take this to mean "Let us have sex with your lovely male friends."

However, note that there are MULTIPLE words for "know" in Hebrew - yada happens to be one of them, and is in fact the one used in the said verse.

A form of yada is used here and hundreds of other times in scripture. Only about ten of those times refer to sex, and in each case, the sexual meaning is clear by the context. (Example: Adam knew his wife and she conceived.) To try to make this word mean sex everywhere will get us in a lot of trouble, because the scripture tells us that God knew David, and uses a form of this word.

Like I said, it sounds ridiculous, but transference of that meaning upon other usages of the word(s) for "know" shows how equally ridiculous such a translation of the verse would appear.

As for a better historical reference,

http://www.apostolicrestorationmission.4t.com/id27.htm

---

Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution. (whosoever.org)

Now, I have heard PLENTY of counterarguments talking about how tattoos, eating shellfish, eating rare (the cooking state) meat, sowing fields with multiple varieties of seed, and so forth. I've even read the letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger that has circulated over the internet. However, these statements aren't the point of my argument here. It is the verses' being used alone that is wrong in this case. The whole of Leviticus concerns the Jewish Holiness Code, a code which, though the basis of Christian moral canon, is basically null and void. See the Acts of the Apostles (10:1 - 11:18, 15:1-21).

As to lying with another man as with a woman ... now there's a bit of a problem here. It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:
> Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
> Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
> Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. there is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.

---

Deuteronomy 23:17 states (in the King James Version) "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel . This is an "error" by the authors of the KJV. The word qadesh in the original text was mistranslated as sodomite. Quadesh means "holy one" and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution in the temple. There is little evidence that the prostitutes engaged in sexual activities with men. Other Bible translations use accurate terms such as shrine prostitute, temple prostitute, prostitute and cult prostitute.[ http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm ]

In this passage, the actual word that is being translated is "qadesh" which means "holy one" or "someone set apart for a holy purpose." In this case the word is referring to people who commit ritual acts of prostitution in order to honor their deity. The clearest translation of this concept would simply be "temple or ritual prostitute". For example, Deuteronomy 23:17 should be translated thusly: "There shall be no ritual prostitute of the daughters of Israel, or a ritual prostitute of the sons of Israel". Any translation which translates qadesh as pervert or sodomite is blatantly mistranslating. An example which shows this clearly is found in the New King James version which translates qadesh in its male form as 'perverted one' but translates qadesh in its female form as 'ritual harlot', both should be 'ritual harlot or prostitute!' [ http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/prologue.html ]

---

St. Paul's letter to the Romans, specifically chapter 1, verses 26 and 27.

Now, according to the King James Version (one of the first "modern" translations), the verses read as follows:

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

However, this is a MAJOR mistranslation from the Greek. The following is a straight-from-Greek translation:

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto disgraceful passions: for their women exchanged the instinctive use (sexual intercourse) into that which is contrary to native disposition. (27) And likewise also the men, laying aside their instinctive use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

These verses, in a somewhat clearer translation, does not mention "true homosexuality," much less condemn it. Excuse me - when I mention "true homosexuality," I am really pointing out Paul's phrase "native disposition." The apostle to the Gentiles is stating that it is a sin to go against the nature (in this case, sexual) that God instilled upon us. In truth, it was of the Roman heterosexuals that Paul spoke. The sort of behavior which Paul is concerned with is similar to the 19th century Boston marriages - which two heterosexual women are "married" - only the difference in the former is more carnal than social.

The bottom line is, God created each of us with a sexual orientation. To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to "re-create" itself.

Some may think it unlikely that heterosexuals in the first century would force themselves to engage in homosexual relations simply because society expected them to. And yet, today, in many parts of the world, homosexuals are forcing themselves to engage in heterosexual relations for the very same reason: Society expects it. But if it was wrong for heterosexuals in the first century to tamper with their sexual orientation, then it is equally wrong for homosexuals today to tamper with theirs. (Lighthouse Ministries)

It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. AND NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT... NO ONE KNOWS THE BACKGROUND... We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context? (Whosoever)

---

1 Corinthians 6:9 -- "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not deceive yourselves: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor soft ones, nor those who have sex with men."

Please pay attention. Why "soft ones" are separate from "those who have sex with men" is a very simple explanation. THEY AREN'T THE SAME THING!!!

"Soft ones" refer to those of who really don't give a rat's ###### for other people - in other words, the rich who'd rather bathe in acid than give money to charity with full sincerity or don't do what Jesus Christ spelled out in Matthew 25 - the parable of the Goats and the Sheep, to be specific. If you have a Christian Bible on you, read it.

For the rest of you who aren't familiar with what I'm saying, The King of Heaven (God) spelled out that whatever we do to others "lower" than us, we do to the King. This would include visiting the sick, welcoming the visitor, giving food and drink to those in need, and doing acts of kindness in total sincerity.

As for "those who have sex with men," no one is really sure WHAT group Paul is directing this towards, but many scholars are very sure that it refers SOLELY to sexual relations outside of marriage, heterosexual or not.

It is amazing the number of times that you will see the word "sodomite" or "homosexual" or "pervert" in different translations concerning this text. It is amazing because no one knows exactly what the words of the original text mean! The layperson, unfortunately, has no way of knowing that interpreters are guessing as to the exact meaning of these words. Pastors and laypersons often have to rely upon the authority of those who have written lexicons (dictionaries explaining the meaning of words) of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. The authors of scriptural lexicons search for the meaning of the word within the scriptures themselves and also go outside of scripture and research literature written around the same time the scriptures were written. If the interpreter is already prejudiced against homosexuality they can translate these words as condemning homosexual sex even based upon little usage of that word in the Scriptures and little if any contemporaneous usage of that word.

The truth is that the word some translators "transform" into "sodomite/homosexual/pervert" in I Corinthians 6:9-10 is actually TWO words. Some translators combine them because they "think" they go together but they DO NOT KNOW. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the words separate and translate them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind".

The two words in the original Greek are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Malakoi is a very common Greek word. It literally means "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to soft clothing. Scholars have to look at material outside of the Bible in order to try and figure out just what this means. The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. In Greek this word never is applied to gay people or homosexual acts in general. "No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians." (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 105-107). (Whosoever)

There were a number of Greek words to describe homosexual sex acts and the two words "malakois" and "arsenokoitai" do not appear among them (on "arsenokoitai" see Boswell, pp 345-346.) [http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/prologue.html]


Argument

Biblical translations and interpretations do indeed happen. However, a COMMON and VERY DANGEROUS "sin" of interpretation, as coined by Peter J. Gomes, is that of culturism - the worship of the culture, in which the Bible is FORCED to conform to the norms of the prevailing culture (Gomes p. 36, emphasis added)

Gomes points out that a prevailing theme in the Old Testament is the intolerance of, in the words of the said author, cultic idolatry, which we take to represent in part a moral impatience and a desire to possess as one's very own the word and works of God (38 ).

Culturism ... is the notion ... that we read scripture not only in the light of our own culture but as a means of defining and defending that very culture over and against which scripture by its very nature is meant to stand. In other words, scripture is invariably used to support the status quo, no matter what the status quo, and despite the revolutionary origins and implications of scripture itself. (47)

In basic and unfortunate truth, "followers" of culturism use scripture to justify current conditions and events - of what has been, is, and "should" be. The danger of culturistic reading of the Bible is the great temptations ... to use it as the moral sanction for our own culture (48 ).

Culturists do not worship God, nor do they idolize the Bible; rather, they force the scripture into servitude under the master Culture - a neo-Mammon of sorts. The Bible itself had been used to support Apartheid in South Africa, a Christian country.

It should be carefully noted that the scripture used to maintain status quo will eventually destroy that same status quo and forward a new era. This can be said for the end of American slavery, the fight against Communist Russia, the Civil Rights movement, the Apartheid era, and so forth.

On to the scientific/psychological attacks.

Stating that homosexual beings are unnatural is about as asinine as the following experiment performed in the late 19th century. A scientist, whose name eludes me, had compared the cranial space of the skulls of a white person and a Negro person. To measure the volume of the Caucasian specimen's space, fine sand was used so to get an accurate measure. As for the Negro specimen, pebbles, considerably more voluminous than sand, were used, and such usage allowed for space to be in between these pebbles, as opposed to the usage of sand.

The results?

The scientist concluded that Negro peoples have smaller cranial spaces than Caucasians, and thus were naturally inferior to whites.

The same is applied to homosexuals, but not by usage of skulls.

Reasons for the unnatural existence and behavior are numerous, but in a good deal of "research," homosexual behavior is deemed "unnatural" due to its non-procreative nature.

Please do note, readers, that this is NOT a scientific statement, but rather is rooted in a theological statement.

By St. Augustine of Hippo, a former Manichaean, and other Church Fathers.

Now, going back to Gomes' work, he points out that when it comes down to cases, homosexuality is not about the Bible or texts. It's all about the sex. (Gomes p. 166) However, the early Christians were raised under the notion that the primary function of sex was procreation. However, when the writers of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) commanded the human race to multiply, the writers meant that from "Adam's" descendents would the Messiah spring out from. Any child could be the Messiah, in this logic, and thus any wasting of the seed - masturbation, coitus interruptus, and "homosexual" activity - was considered sinful.

Mind you, St. Paul did not pick up this notion and run with it. Rather, he preached celibacy, given that he believed that the Christ would return within the era of the Apostles - why make more kids when the end times are near?

The emphasis on procreation was made by the Church Fathers, who, seeing that the end of the world was not yet at hand and that the church needed to be replenished, grudgingly gave the mandate of sex for procreation. ... they, like Paul, held celibacy to be a higher vocation than marriage ... by keen observation [of the pagan pleasures of sex] ... they wished to separate "Christian sex" from "pagan sex" by imposing a strictly moral purpose on it.(168 )

It was St. Augustine of Hippo who used the theology of shame on sexual behavior. He himself, who was once a wild child, changed up the Eden story to make the disobedience sin into one of "discovery of sexual shame" (ibid), thus making sex itself the cause of the Fall. In this logic, Augustine made marriage itself a sign of weakness of the persons involved.

What the homosexual did was different, and hence the homosexual was different, and in a religious world that increasingly prized conformity in all things, but particularly sexual manners, the difference branded the homosexual a threat to the moral order, the equivalent of a heretic in the church or a traitor to the state. (169)

The Bible itself was used to enforce the moral strictures on sex; however, it was also used as evidence for the same system. A homosexual, in this belief system, was considered with masturbation and other non-procreative sexual activity to be deviant and were all the more in the state of sinful lust.

What is illogical about this argument is the source for counter arguments - what of infertile couples? Andrew Sullivan points out in the March 1996 issue of The New Republic that, "if homosexuality is an objective disorder, then what is infertility?" (Gomes p. 170)

According to Sigmund Freud, in "Letter to an American Mother" (1935, documented on page 128 of Pim Pronk's work), he stated that it is certainly no advantage to be homosexual, but neither is it anything to be ashamed of; it is not a vice, nor degeneracy, let alone a crime; and "it cannot be classified as an illness; we [psychologists and sexologists of the era] consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development." It is even stated by Freud in his "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality" that "A person's final sexual attitude is not decided until puberty." It is "the result of a number of factors, not all of which are yet known; some are of a constitutional nature," but others are social in character. Freud does not deny than qualitative differences in the end products exist but "the differences between their determinants are only quantitative"(Pronk 128 ). Freud even states in these essays that humans are psychically bisexual, "as apparent in childhood" (ibid.)

It is a very interesting "coincidence" to point out that Pope John Paul II has many NON-Catholics agreeing with his stance against homosexual behavior.

However, this should be pointed out.
"Naturalness" in a moral sense depends on the prior acceptance of a normative view of man in which reproduction is regarded as the purpose of sexuality. It is this view of man, not the naturalness of it, that makes the intention to reproduce oneself a moral obligation. Now, if naturalness in a moral sense is not applicable to heterosexual because of reproduction, then the counter-notion of "unnaturalness" is not applicable to homosexuality because of non-reproduction. Therefore, the concepts "natural"/"unnatural" have no discriminating value and we cannot do anything with them in our ethical reflection. (244)

A final question of this logic of unnatural behavior.

Are we able to get beyond this notion of "procreation only" sex?

The answer is yes. In fact, the 1958 resolution of the Ninth Lambeth Conference - the decennial meeting of Anglican bishops - stated that sexual intercourse is "not by any means the ONLY language of earthly love, but it is, in its full and right use, the most revealing" (171, emphasis added). In this logic, we would be wrong to say that the only purpose of sex is a willing conception of offspring.

To conclude this section, not only is the "scientific" argument of "procreation only" heavily on the UN-scientific side, it is also a wrongful assumption to make, when God gave us the gift of love so we can share it with others and our partner.

This is not a very good closing thesis, but in short, most, if not all, homophobic arguments are essentially flawed, thanks to mistranslation, misinterpretation, and misapplication of the Scripture.


Works Cited

Peter J. Gomes. The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. New York: HarperCollins, 1996

Pim Pronk. Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation regarding Homosexuality. Grand Rapids (Michigan): Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993

Lighthouse Ministries < http://www.apostolicrestorationmission.4t.com/id27.htm >

Whosoever < http://www.whosoever.org/bible/ >

The devil can quote scripture to his own ends.

Any verse in the bible you have in support of something I can find one in there against it or in support of the opposite.

As soon as religious folk realize that holy books can be made to say what you want them to say the better... because maybe then they'll stop quoting their own scripture to justify intolerance and hatred.

Woah! Go Linaloki!

I'm Agnostic (with all these people saying things, I simply don't know what to believe sweatdrop ), but my family are Christian. I always wonder if me being this way is a sin. But thanks. ^_^ Linaloki is the best bible interpreter.

So with this said. Christians who bash Homosexuality are not following Christianity right?

I don't think she was saying you're wrong, just that much of the Bible can be interpreted many different ways.

But we all know Loki is the master-intepreter. heart