In this article the major scriptures included are as follows:

Homosexuality - A Natural Form of Creation

Not a Curse - Not a Learned Behavior - Not a Malfunction

Statistically we now know that 10 percent of the population has the essential nature of homosexuality. Mathematically, that means ten out of every hundred, you see every day, according to the average probability, are gay or lesbian

Ignorance, No Matter How Sanctified With Pious Words, How Buttressed by Scripture Quotations, Is Finally Still Ignorance

. That means the sexual orientation of one out of every ten people, your family circle, those you work with, socialize with, live on your block, see at the store, drive down the road with, eat at the restaurants with and so forth, according to the mathematical odds, are gay or lesbian. In the United States, that comes to twenty-eight million citizens. The gay and lesbian population is all around us, touching our lives at numerous points, receiving our love and friendship, serving us with professional competence in a myriad of ways, even listening to and laughing at our jokes and our no -so-subtle innuendo's about homosexuality. (9) Being part of the very development in the womb before birth, a prenatal occurrence, as modern scientific research now reveals, this percentage itself, one out of every ten, points hardly to an accident at birth, but part of the creation of God. Creation that God has set place, determined and brought forth, a part of life that men and women of unconditional love accept of one another.

Unlike an illness that one can say he or she "has," such as "I have cancer," homosexuality is an essential characteristic of the life that a person "is," as it is said, "I am gay," or, "I am male," I am female," all identifying the very self of the person, identifying something which we have no control or that we cannot think of ourselves apart from it. Homosexuality is neither an "unnatural" mental illness nor a learned behavior, but the very essence of the person, the identity that is determined before birth, as evidence of modern science now shows.

In the past, Homosexuality as been diagnosed as a mental illness, a medical model that persists in the minds of many. Homosexuality as an illness, however, began to be questioned with the publication of the Kinesy reports in 1948 and 1952. That questioning grew until the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association officially removed it in 1973 from the second edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

"The modern, prevailing notion that homosexuality is a mental disorder is rooted in Sigmund Freud's theory that is an aberration that occurs when normal development is somehow distorted between the ages of four and nine." (10)

This cruel theory blames the parents and guardians of the child and, now with modern science developments, conflicts with these past findings. Continued research of Homosexuality has found not a cure to an illness, but the fact that Homosexuality is a prenatal development, a natural occurrence that takes place in the womb, long before birth and is irrevocable after birth.

John Spong brings out in his book, Living In Sin, the research performed by the director of the Institute of Experimental Endocrinology at the University of Humboldt in East Berlin, Gunter Dorner. In his research, Dorner, revealed to the scientific community the understanding of the hypothalamus, located beneath the thalamus in the brain, was the controller of output of the hormones and Dorner's experimentation's with rats revealed that when rats did not get enough of their appropriate sex hormone during development these sex centers would be formed differently, creating in males the sexual behavior of females and vise versa.

Dorner's series of experiments showed that male rats deprived of testosterone during the critical fetal period of sexual determination in the brain produced homosexual behavior in their later adult lives. Dorner brought out that when these male rats possessed feminized brains, from their lack of testosterone in prenatal growth. Now as adult male rats, injected with estrogen their brains produced a surge of the ovulation hormone known as luteinizing hormone (LH), their brains interpreting the flow of estrogen as a signal from an ovary that was nonexistent in their male bodies. The interesting thing about this experiment is that this same test was conducted on human beings with identical results. The brains of the homosexual males responded to the estrogen injection with a surge of the LH hormone, responding to an nonexistent ovary and yet the same injections of estrogen given to heterosexual males failed to produce LH. This supported Dorner's belief that the brains of the male homosexuals were physiologically determined by biochemical variables during prenatal development, demonstrating the true source and explanation of homosexuality.

John Spong further gives an amazing documented account of the story of Dominican Republic children, recorded by Jo Durden-Smith and Diane de Simone. A documented case of thirty-eight different people coming from twenty-three families, all descendants from a person fictitiously named for protection, Amaranta Ternera. Seventeen children were studied by a group headed by Cornell University's Julianne Imperato McGinley.The account shows thirty-eight persons born with genes that failed to process a hormone called dihydrostestosterone, resulting in all being born as females, which in turn, were raised as females, putting these persons in feminine roles in upbringing, both culturally and socially.

At puberty these persons, all girls, had something strange happen,

"The eldest, Prudencio, was born with an apparent vagina and female body-shape, just like his next sister-brother, Matilda. Prudencio, was christened Prudencia. And he grew up Pilar says, tied to his mother's apron strings, kept apart from the village boys and helping with women's work. but then something strange began to happen to his body. His voice began to deepen. At around the age of twelve, his "clitoris" grew into a penis and two hidden testicles descended into a scrotum formed by the lips of his "vagina." He became a male. "He changed h is clothes." says his father Gerineldo, "which the neighbors just had to get used to. And he fell in love with a girl almost immediately. Today Prudencio is in his early thirties. Like his brother Matilda, now Mateo, his is a brawny, elaborately muscled man. He is sexually potent and he lives with his wife in the United States. It is this which makes Pudencio and the other Dominican children important. They seem to have had no problem adjusting to male gender, male sexual orientation and male roles. Prudencio and the others are genetically male.(13)

The argument here shows the these persons were born with a masculinized brain already established prior to birth along with their "female bodies," a male brain being in there all along, functioning with no problem as their bodies changed at puberty. Not only does this show that the body is sexed at birth, but also the brain. And by this argument, nature, in gender behavior, is every bit as important as nurture, which nurture may have little to do with it.

All of this supports the prenatal sexing of the brain, that homosexuality is a predetermined act of creation and unchangeable once set in. It is not genetic in nature and therefore cannot be "bred out" of the species. To claim this as a malfunction or unnatural occurrence, would be to say, that one out of every 10 persons is a malfunction. This is hardly consistent with the exactness and predictability of nature.

However, those that do appear to be malfunctions of nature are few and far between and in almost all cases, the persons born are sterile. Where as the male consists of the XY chromosomes and the female, the XX chromosomes, the three other common malfunctions of nature in birth are rare and do not produce others with the same genetic makeup.

XX	Female
XY	Male
Single X	This individual is born with only one sex chromosome, a single X and is always female, yet has not ovaries.
XXY	Found in Klinefelter's Syndrome, this person possesses three chromosomes, resulting in a sterile male which may develop some female characteristics, some making their living in circus freak shows.
XYY	Not necessarily a sterile male, but tend to have a pronounced tendency toward aggression that has been sometimes becomes antisocial.

The Term "Homosexual"

The Combination Of Ignorance And Prejudice Under The Guise Of Morality And The Bible, Makes The Religious Community, And Its Abuse Of Scripture In This Regard, Itself Morally Blameworthy And Injurious.

It is interesting the word "Homosexual" can not be found in the bible and did not come into existence until the 19th century by a Hungarian writer commenting on the Prussian legal code. It was not until the year 1946 when the Revised Standard Version put the term "homosexual in it's interpretation.

Peter Gomes relates:

"Given the appeal to the Bible in the case against homosexuality, one would assume that the Bible has much to say on the subject. It has not. The subject of homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the Summary of the Law. No prophet discourses on the subject. Jesus himself makes no mention of it, and homosexuality does not appear to be of much concern in those early churches with which Saint Paul and his successors were involved. One has to look rather hard and with a user-friendly concordance, to find any mention of homosexuality at all. This should come as no surprise, because the word homosexuality itself is an invention of the late nineteenth century and does not occur in any of the original manuscripts from which the English Bible is descended. As historian John Boswell has pointed out in his magisterial 1980 study, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, (1a) In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word, "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible, no extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian or Aramaic, contains such a word. In fact none of these languages ever contained a word corresponding to the English "homosexual," nor did nay language have such a term before the late nineteenth century. (1b) Victor Paul Furnish in his 1985 book The Moral Teaching of Paul, informs that the term homosexuality was not coined until the later half of the nineteenth century when it was used by a Hungarian writer commenting on the Prussian legal code. Furnish goes on to remind us that the King James Version of 1611 makes no mention of homosexuality or of any other words in genetically related languages pertaining to it, and that the first use of the term is an English Bible is to be found in the Revised Standard Version of 1946. More recent translations imply the word homosexuality to biblical situations that the translators assume correspond to the meaning of the word and thus today, depending upon your translation of choice, you may or may not see homosexuality in the Bible. There is no doubt, however, that you would not have found the word in any Bible in any language before the year 1946. The significance of those who associate the term homosexuality and any words in genetically related languages thereof force person to investigate further the verses containing this term.(1a)

Genesis
Chapters 1 and 2

In Genesis chapters 1 and 2, we see Adam and Eve with reproductive tools for the purpose of continual creation of the human race. The story is about companionship, making Adam complete. It was not necessarily about marriage, but the establishment of the human race. Adam and Eve were instructed to procreate and have all animals in subjection to them. The story itself is neutral, although many would argue such. But it is simply the establishment of the beginning of the human race.

Although the command to "be fruitful and multiply," at sometime was given, Genesis second creation account shows Eve was not created for Adam to "be fruitful and multiply." Rather, Eve was created as a helper for Adam, to make him complete, for "being alone was not good." Adam and Eve would have sexual intimacy which would bring something far beyond being "fruitful and multiplying," for the two "would become one flesh." Being "one flesh" represents two human beings forming the strongest intimate bond two humans can form. This would bring two humans into an intimacy representing what Christ would have with his church, an act of intimacy, of love. This was the purpose of sex. Sex is to bring the closest of intimacy bringing two people a bond of love like no other.

If the purpose of sex were for only procreative purposes, should we allow infertile couples to have sex? Should sex be allowed for pleasure other than reproduction? Should birth control be allowed? 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. It is a giving and receiving in the unity of two free spirits which is in itself good. It is unitive of two humans rather than procreative. Sex can be productive without being reproductive. On this basis, Homosexual intercourse is not, in and of itself, the unnatural vice that tradition, nor scripture condemns.

Some years ago a large group of gay-rights activists were demonstrating in Washington, D.C, when a small group of Christian protesters confronted them. The Christians shouted derogatory and insulting remarks as a group of gays marching under the flag of the Metropolitan Community Church sang "Jesus Loves Me." Author Philip Yancey observed the encounter and later wrote in Christianity Today:

"The abrupt ironies in that scene of confrontation stayed with me long after I left Washington. On the one side were "righteous" Christians defending pure doctrine (not even the National Council for Churches has deemed the MCC worthy of membership). On the other were "sinners," many of whom openly admit to homosexual practice, yet one side spewed out hate and the other sang of Jesus' love." (1)

King David's adultery with a married women, Bathsheba, does not invalidate all heterosexual marriages.	Can Homosexual Gang Violence Invalidate All Homosexual Activity?

Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 19:1-9

In this account "every man and boy" lined up in front of Lot's house and demanded the two angels so that they may get to "know" them. Most theologians will agree that "to know" them in this context, meant abusive sexual intercourse with perversions, unnatural of its kind and further a violent rape. This account clearly shows a gang rape and torture to be attempted. Nowhere does it even slightly suggest a monogamous, loyal, faithful and loving relationship between two individual and consenting adults. The story here is about rape. Is it right for anyone to suggest that the condemnation of homosexual gang rape is to be equated with the condemnation of homosexual per se? Obviously not. How can this account be used to support against faithful monogamous same sex couples who contribute to the community? Homosexual rape can not invalidate all homosexual activity, just as King David's adultery with a married women, Bathsheba, cannot invalidate all heterosexual marriages.

Selective Literalism Is A Very Weak Basis Upon which to argue for the Condemnation of Anything. Morality Will Not Ever Be Sustained By Biblical Ignorance.

What is so interesting in the account of Lot and inconsistent on the part of so many modern day theological circles within the church, is the fact that the biblical narrative approves Lot's offering of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the angry mob. How many of us can read this and say "This is the word of the Lord!" Lot, the righteous man who would be spared by God, acting out of the custom of hospitality, was willing to protect his guests at the price of offering his own virgin daughters for sexual abuse.

Secondly, this account of incest of Lot's two daughters, subsequently committed with him after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, suggests that incest is a legitimate way of impregnating women when there is no man around beyond the father of daughters. What society would today be willing to incorporate either of these practices, (the practice of offering your virgin daughter over a stranger for abuse and incest) into its moral code? Who among us is willing to accept the definition of women implicit in this account? If we reject the denigration of women as property or the practice of incest, both being based upon an inadequate view of morality, are we not also free to reject this society's faulty understanding of homosexuality as being also based upon inadequate moral grounds? (15)

To again emphasize the point on the laws of hospitality, the Bible repeats this same story almost exact, except in this case the visitor hands over his concubine to the mob of men outside, where they abuse and rape her all night long, bringing her back dead in the morning.

When the bible is quoted literally to affirm a particular moral stance or to condemn specific behavior, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety. Selective literalism is a very weak basis upon which to argue for the condemnation of anything. Morality will not ever be sustained by biblical ignorance. (16)

Later references made to Sodom and Gomorrah made in II Peter and Jude were used as examples of God's destruction of people who did not believe or taught heresy. They were used as models for the increasing desire of the leadership of the Christian church to impose order and control on the life of the church. References to Sodom and Gomorrah were tantamount to threats of "hellfire" for those who did not mend their ways.

Deuteronomy 23:17

"Whore" verses "Cult Prostitute"

But those who are certain the King James bible is the only true version of God's word find their prejudice against homosexual persons affirmed by this blatant mistranslation.

There are other references to homosexuality in the Hebrew Scriptures where the English translation is simply in error and reflects the prejudice of the translator. A case in point is in Deuteronomy 23:17, which the King James Bible renders,

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." Deu 23:17

The Hebrew word translated "whore" is aedeshah, and the Hebrew word rendered "sodomite" is the masculine form of the same word, or qudesh. These words mean quite simply that an Israelite was not to engage in prostitution, which was the cultic practice of the surrounding nations. It had noting to do with monogamous homosexual relations, and was not even hinted to be speaking of such.

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible renders this word as "cult prostitute" (for both genders), here and in several other places. But those who are certain the King James bible is the only true version of God's word find their prejudice against homosexual persons affirmed by this blatant mistranslation.

The Law of Leviticus - Holiness Code 18:22 & 20:13

External Ritual Purity vs. Internal Evil

The nation of Israel was surrounded by other cultures that performed hurtful, lustful and unclean practices. Children were being exploited as temple prostitutes, babies were thrown in fires as sacrifices to their many gods. Sexual orgies and lack of respect and kindness of others were prominent, bringing selfish lustful pursuits as the way of life.

God's people, the nation of Israel, were to be different. They were to stand out as a "holy nation" a nation of holy people, "a nation of kings and priests." Here, would be a group of persons who would stand out from all other nations as a holy.

"You shall not lie with a male the same as a woman: it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22" If a male lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13

The statements are clear, but the context and application are not. It is clear that this so-called Holiness Code is designed to provide a standard of moral behavior that will distinguish the Hebrews from the Canaanites, The entire land they have would be a distinguished land, separating the Hebrews from the Canaanites, the Hebrews being holy, whose land they have been given by God. The price of the land, as it were, is a new standard of behavior. The Hebrews were not to worship the Canaanites god Molech, nor adopt any of his practices.

Homosexuality was to be listed along with:

1. Honor Of Parents 2. Keeping Of The Sabbath 3. Forbidding Of Cattle Interbreeding 4. Forbidding Of Sowing Fields With Two Different Kinds Of Seeds 5. Not To Wear Garments With Two Different Types Of Materials 6. Fruit Trees Could Not Be Harvested On Every Fifth Year 7. And Various Dietary Laws Had To Be Kept.

Unlike intrinsically evil actions, such as rape, theft and murder, the abominations alongside "men who lie with men", include eating pork, engaging in intercourse during menstruation.

The rules of the Hebrews were designed for a very specific purpose in a very particular setting. They were to stand out as a different people than the others. In addition they would honor their parents, keep the Sabbath, forbid cattle interbreeding, forbid sowing fields with two different kinds of seeds, not to wear garments with two different types of materials. Fruit trees could not be harvested on every fifth year and various dietary laws had to be kept. It was a ritual purity, an external one, that would prove the Hebrews as a holy people, different from their neighbors, the Canaanites. Homosexuality in Leviticus is condemned as ritually impure, an abomination, the same as eating pork. An abomination is by definition what the Gentiles do, but that in and of itself is not necessarily evil or a violation of the Commandments. Thus homosexuality is an abomination in Leviticus not because it is inherently evil but because the Gentiles do it, and it is therefore ritually impure.

For Jesus and Saint Paul, the external ritual purity of which Leviticus speaks is plainly irrelevant; for they are both concerned with the internal purity of the heart. Homosexuality in Leviticus is condemned as ritually impure, against the external law code, the key to this conclusion being the fact that the word abomination does not usually describe something internally evil, such as rape or theft, but something that is ritually impure, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation. An Abomination is by definition what the Gentiles do, but that in and of itself is not necessarily evil or a violation of the Commandments. Thus homosexuality is an abomination in Leviticus not because it is inherently evil but because the Gentiles do it and it is therefore ritually impure.

The Leviticus law on menstruation presents itself as a deep fear. Legends and superstitions that reflected this circulated freely. Cleansing rituals were required before the banished menstruating woman was allowed back into the camp. She was unclean and presumed a threat ot male virility and the the health and well-being of the male sex organs. Any man that has sexual relations with a woman who was menstruating, both were cut off from the people.

In the modern world with new information in the fields of science, medicine, technology and the progressive movement away from the male dominated patriarchal society, it has become come clear to us the superstition of menstruating women is no longer something to be feared and is a normal function in the female bodies role in procreation. Since this has become clear, most, if not all, have failed to honor the biblical restrictions and cleansing rituals on menstruation. Yet as this is so, why must so many be bound to honor the Levitical understanding of homosexuality? What is it that makes us conform to the pre-modern codes of the ancient Semites and assume that their writings are free of ignorance, superstition and prejudice?

These factors can also be seen in the rejection and disqualification for approaching God, of any who had the blemishes of being blind, lame, have a scared face, being a hunchback or dwarf, or having crushed testicles. The mentality of that age assumed that all these physical abnormalities were signs of the judgment of the curse of God. They did not understand that the polio virus could leave one with a paralyzed limb, nor comprehend astigmatism, cataracts, epilepsy, MS, and the thousands of disfiguring diseases, each having a valid medical reason for doing such.

Reiterating John Spong,

"None of these prohibitions or definitions are accepted today. They are clear examples of pre-modern ignorance. Not even the most vigorous fundamentalist would cite these texts to justify exclusion of such person from any position today. The nature of prejudice is to condemn whatever is not understood, for ignorance always breeds fear and insecurity. Because there is still a large measure of both ignorance and fear concerning the nature and origin of homosexuality, people seem quite willing still to quote this ancient source of Leviticus as the infallible and final word of God, because it validates and confirms as true their particular prejudice. If many of the the other pronouncements of the priestly writers have been dismissed, then how valid is the claim that only in these isolated texts on homosexuality is the inerrant word of God spoken?" (17)

Apostle Paul's Words
Romans 1:12-32

All Paul knew of Homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own. "Although asserting they were wise they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things. Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness that their bodies might be dishonored a among them even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the one who created who is blessed forever, Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary too nature. and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust (passion) toward on another, (males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense which was due for their error. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state to do the things not fitting. filled as they were with all unrighteousness., wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whispers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent haughty, self assuming, inventors of injurious things disobedient to parents without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection merciless Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them." Romans 1:12-32

In Apostle Paul's day, it was the Gentiles who practiced a polygamy style of sex, where there were those stronger exploiting the weaker. Temple prostitutes, orgies and total disrespect for other persons bodies. In his time era, it was uncommon to find loyal, faithful, monogamous, same sex relationships. But instead, Apostle Paul speaks of those that are inflamed with passion and lust who use this passion in an unnatural, abusive and domineering way. Unnatural does not have to be defined as same sex relationships, but of abusive, merciless and domineering actions. Secondly, the sex involved was that of an inflamed passion, a worship of the creature, rather than the creator, God. For true worship belongs to God only and him alone. John Spong comments on what is "natural:"

"There are those who judge homosexuality as a perversion deliberately chosen by those of a depraved or sinful nature. Many heterosexual people cannot imagine that homosexual lovemaking could be pleasurable, some even say they are revolted at the thought of it. Members of the dominant sexual orientation reason that what is normal for them is also natural; if Any Sexual Behavior Can Be Destructive, Exploitative, Predatory, or Promiscuous, and Therefore Evil, Regardless of The Sexes of The Parties Involved. something is not normal for them it must be deviant and, thus, depraved. A variation of this conclusion argues that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural," it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypic definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect the rigid gender categories that arise out of patriarchal society. "Natural" sex is based on the complimentary aspects of male and female genitalia. But the urgent question is: How important are the genitalia to sexual desire? Rosemary Ruether has argued that men and women process equally the physical apparatus necessary for emotional intimacy. (11) But human thinking has been so influenced by patriarchal values that the male-female relationship can be imagined only in terms of a power equation involving domination and subjection. Female receptivity to male penetration in the sex act has become a paradigm and a synonym for the natural. In this scheme, heterosexual activity is defined as the only valid expression of love. A corollary of this assumption suggests that the man has a gender-specific capacity for passive intuition-a sixth sense, if you will. We are moving away form that mentality. Personhood emerges not out of an imposed sexual role but out of the human ability to hear, feel, think, and relate. None of these abilities requires sex organs of any shape or description. Men and women alike have the physiology necessary to speak and hear, to love and be loved. Personal unity comes, Dr. Ruether attests, when one connects "the many parts of the self through multiple relationships with other people. (12) There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners into a fuller state of being. Can a religious tradition that has long practiced circumcision and institutionalized celibacy ever dismiss any other practice on the basis of its unnaturalness? Contemporary research is today uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion, or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural, and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. This research is still in its infancy, relatively speaking, but it has demonstrated a capacity to confront and challenge sexual fear and prejudice that has become entrenched by centuries of repetition. Only in the last few decades have we begun to understand such things as the structure and various functions of the brain, to say nothing of the importance of chromosomes. Discoveries in these areas have had a dramatic effect on our knowledge of human behavior. Specifically, research consistently seems to support the assertion that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice; that it is not related to any environmental influence; that it is not the result of an overbearing mother or an effeminate or absent father or a seductive sexual encounter. Some researchers are finding that certain biochemical events during prenatal life may determine adult sexual orientation, and that once set it is not amenable to change. Through new data are being gathered almost daily, few people working in the area of brain research expect these conclusions to be overturned.(13) Some people fear that accepting the stance of homosexuality being a prenatal natural occurrence, will mean that critical judgment must be suspended form all forms of homosexual behavior. That, too is an irrational manifestation of prejudice. All forms of heterosexual behavior do not receive approval just because we affirm the goodness of heterosexuality. Any sexual behavior can be destructive, exploitative, predatory, or promiscuous, and therefore evil, regardless of the sexes of the parties involved. Whenever any of those conditions exist, a word of moral judgment needs to be spoken. The difficulty comes when a society evaluates heterosexuality per se as good and homosexuality per se as evil. Such moral absolutes eventuate in preferential ethical treatment for heterosexuals. Distinctions will be made for heterosexual people between life-giving and life-destroying behavior, while any and all patterns of sexual behavior arising from a homosexual orientation are condemned as sinful. Such a moral position leaves gay and lesbian persons with no options save denial or suppression. Indeed, many an ecclesiastical body has suggested that these are in fact the only moral choices open to homosexual oriented people. Perhaps we need to be reminded that large numbers of heterosexual people engage in promiscuity, prostitution, rap, child molestation, incest, and every conceivable form of sadomasochism. Further, by refusing to accept any homosexual behavior as normal, this homophobic society drives many gay and lesbian people into the very behavior patters that the straight world most fears and condemns. Prejudice always defines its victims negatively, blanketing them with stereotypes that hide from view their individual humanity. (14)

If Apostle Paul were including any type of same sex relations, whether abusive or loyal and faithful, the question arises as to where Paul was coming from. If Paul was including any type of same sex relations, was it because of being ignorant of a monogamous, faithful and loyal same sex relation? Or could he have considered it to have been a stumbling block for the Jews and others who he was trying to convert to Christianity? But to read the words and put a blanket condemnation on all homosexual activity, interpreting to rule out any same sex relations with no room for flexibility, would have to make the reader consistent and become hard fast on all points raised by Paul, such as a woman's role in the church, not allowed to speak, neither allowed to teach, wearing a head covering, a certain way of dress code and his opinions on marriage. The troubling point on this is, it puts rules and legalism ahead of the mercy, empathy and loving kindness that is to be foremost in the teachings of Paul's role model, Jesus Christ. It conflicts with Christ's teaching of mercy over sacrifice, demonstrated by his breaking of many of the hard fast laws applied by the Pharisees of his day, such as the threshing and eating of grain and healing on the Sabbath, the touching and healing of a woman with a blood flow and lepers in public, the associating and eating with prostitutes and tax collectors, the over turning of animal sacrifice booths in the temple and the very public outspoken condemnation of the legalism of the true religious and righteous leaders, the Pharisees, in public.

In addition, if you compare these problems Paul speaks about in Romans chapter 1 you can see that the events were current and the same as described in 2 Timothy chapter 3, Jude and 2 Peter. That these events were not reserved for a future time period, but were directly happening as Paul was writing the letter to the Romans. It can be seen that all of these problems t hat were already happening in Paul's day did not necessarily apply to loyal, monogamous and faithful same sex relationships, but rather it would be in much more agreement with the context and teaching of the Christ to be applying to the way of life of the Gentiles and their selfish, lustful and abusive sexual ways that were practiced in Paul's day.

Notice how Eugene H. Petersen, paraphrases Romans 1 from his book entitled, "The Message,"

"Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn't know how to be human either-women didn't know how to be women, men didn't know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled on another, women with women, men with men-all lust, not love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it-emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches." Romans Chapter 1 (2)

"All lust, not love, and they paid for it." As passions without love, sex for hire, male prostitution, are the context of Paul's words pertaining to "unnatural" sex. Paul is speaking of passions. Passions are more than emotions; they are emotions out of control. Dishonorable passions are a disordering of God's purpose. Paul is speaking here of passions out of control, that become an end in and of themselves, that are in fact idolatrous. Dishonorable passions refer to the worship of sexual pleasure, an excess to be condemned with all other excesses.

The homosexuality Paul would have known and to which he made reference in his letters, particularly to the Romans, has to do with pederasty and male prostitution, and he particularly condemns those heterosexual men and women who assume homosexual practices. What is patently unknown to Paul is the concept of a homosexual nature, that is, using Paul's sense of the word "nature," something that is beyond choice, that is not necessarily characterized by lust, avarice, idolatry, or exploitation, and that aspires to a life under the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit. All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for out own. To bas the church's principled objections to homosexuality and homosexuals on the basis of Paul's imperfect knowledge is itself unprincipled, and indeed quite beside all of the heroic points that Paul intends to make in Romans chapter 1.

With modern medical research's revealing of the irreversible, prenatal formation of the brain determining the sexual behavior of individuals, bringing out what is "natural" and "unnatural," persons are either born heterosexual or homosexual in neurological evidence. Hence comes Apostle Paul's lack of modern knowledge of what is unnatural, labeling all homosexuality as evil.

Paul's condemnation on homosexuality, interprets such as not the sin but the punishment of unfaithfulness. Appealing for the unification between the dissension of the two quarreling parties, the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, Paul contends homosexuality as unnatural behavior, resulting in mankind's inability to obtain discerning minds that can discern vital distinctions. Paul did not or perhaps could not even imagine a life in which the affections of a loyal, monogamous, same sex relationship could contribute in the worship to God

With this in mind, there comes about the question of the prenatal condition of creation that produces the neurological sexual patterns formed in the brain that brings about a gay or lesbian person. Can their engagement in homosexuality be considered unnatural as those born heterosexual who engage in such practices? Paul's lack of knowledge and ignorance in this area cannot be condemned, but neither should this lack of medical and modern science, along with his ignorance, be an excuse for our own. We must realize that God Himself is one of agape, bringing this about in ourselves and our treatment and acceptance of others, all glorifying Him within ourselves.

Apostle Paul's Words
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the reference to homosexuals among the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God actually has as its context in Chapter 5 a startling case of heterosexual immorality, and of a kind not even found among the pagans: "For a man is living with his father's wife. (1 Corinthians 5:1) Paul is so horrified by this that he demands that the man be expelled from the community, and it is this violation of the accepted standard of Christian behavior that leads Paul into another discussion about how Christians ought ot live, and how they ought to put their old lives behind them. This passage is not about homosexuality, there is no reason to believe that the Corinthian church was troubled on that topic. We must remind ourselves that when Paul speaks of what we call homosexuality, he is speaking again of what can be called the "Gentile sin," whose characteristics are those of willful, lustful, exploitive, avaricious, self-deceiving, self-absorbed, and thus idolatrous. Of course someone who fits this profile is unfit for the kingdom of heaven.

Apostle Paul's Words In Question
1 Timothy 1:9-10

"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." 1 Timothy 1:9-10 New International Version "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 1 Timothy 1:9-10 King James Version "Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine." 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Revised Standard Version

In the list included with "murders, slave traders, liars, murders of mothers and fathers and manslayers," Apostle Paul includes those of a sexual nature, "perverts, adulterers, whoremongers, persons who defile themselves with mankind, menstealers, immoral persons and sodomites."

In 1 Timothy 1:10, "sodomites" are to be found on the list of the lawless and the disobedient for whom the law is laid down "Sodomite," which refers almost exclusively to a male prostitute, and is not a Pauline synonym for "homosexual," as we understand that term

Spong comments,

"The author listed types of people who need to hear the law: immoral persons, arsenokoitals (translated as "sodomites" in the Revised Standard Version and as "them that defile themselves with mankind" in the King James Version), and kidnappers. The argument was that the correct teaching would issue in correct behavior, hence the presence of evil behavior revealed the presence of bad teaching. If "kidnappers" referred to people who enslaved young boys for the purpose of sexual exploitation, then the three words might be taken together to mean the male who desired sex with a young boy, the young boy himself and the slave dealer who trapped the boy for sale. As such this passage would refer to a particular type of exploitative sexual activity involving male sex slaves that is and should be condemned. But that should not be broadened to condemn the forms of love between consenting same sex persons that are not exploitative but mutually life giving."

Holy spirit, with discernment, as well as common logic and insight in reading the context of 1 Timothy chapter 1 with the above words, truly shows that the sexual sins Paul speaks about, do not apply to loyal, monogamous and faithful same sex relationships, but pertain to male prostitution, sex that is abusive, hurtful and domineering in relationships, both homosexual and heterosexual. For the sins against Christ are the sins against faith and love. When people go against "loving their fellow man as themselves," they sin against the Christ and fall under Paul's words quoted above.

A Note on Apostle Paul

"For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing." Romans 7:19 Paul's Evil

The interjecting of his human (fleshly) legal thoughts from his educated, Pharisee background appear throughout his letters. This may include his words on homosexuality and women.

Paul's interjecting of his human (fleshly) legal thoughts from his educated, Pharisee background appear throughout his letters. This may include his words on homosexuality and women. This may be the "evil" he speaks about within him.

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing." Romans 7:19

Legalism, Jewish traditions, cultural conditioning, teachings of Jewish Pharisee schooling and training, all could contribute to Paul's "evil" within him. Yet Paul's labeling homosexuality as not a sin, but the punishment of unfaithfulness, resulting in the inability of the mind to fully discern various distinctions, has the implications of inclusion in Paul's own punishment upon him, as he pleaded with God three times to remove this "thorn in the flesh," yet his answer was given to be God's undeserved kindness towards him as sufficient enough, as Paul was able to see his tendencies to think in undiscerning ways within himself and determine this as punishment and evil.

Was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge available to him in his day and infected by the prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions help clarify this answer.

Paul's anti-Semitic attitude in Romans 11:8 are now words that embarrass the ecumenical and interfaith community. What makes this stand out, is the grouping of Jews as a whole, a blanket statement, lumping the Jews together with a group character, consistent in prejudice, grouping them as a whole, from the ability to discern the intended purpose of God, when throughout the New Testament, the teachings of Christ pertain to each person individually, obtaining an intimate and personal walk with God, finding the unique inner path of solitude, the interior silence within, where God is found, a relationship that can never be found, nor determined within any national, religious organization and culture itself.

"God gave to (the Jews) a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear down to this very day. Romans 11:8

Paul's belief and instructions to put our complete obedience to the state, as being of such, instituted by God and therefore unable to ever be challenged by Christians falls tremendously short. For many, as the framers of the Magna Carta, George Washington and Martin Luther King, Jr., to name only a few, believed that they had both a right and a duty to challenge the power of the established government, the very governments Paul spoke of as immune to challenge, unable to confront and defy. And for their resistance against these very human governments, in defiance of Paul's instructions, governments which they believed to be of injustice, we now live in a better world.

"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves . . this is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing." Romans 13:2,6

Paul's words on many matters, were commented by him, not as God's command, but his personal opinion as can be seen in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.

"To other people my opinion (though this is not a divine command) is this. For a brother who has a non-Christian wife who is willing to live with him he should not divorce her. 1 Corinthians 7:12

Spong comments,

"In the Pauline corpus, the apostle did try to distinguish between that which was his opinion and that which were the revealed tradition of the church. He implied that the revealed tradition carried more authority than his opinion. Unfortunately when Paul discussed many issues, including homosexuality, he did not always tell us whether this was personal opinion or revealed tradition. It really did not matter, though, for both personal opinion and revealed tradition are subject to change in the light of new knowledge and insight. It is certainly possible, indeed probable in view of the now abandoned Pauline position on many issues, that what was articulated in Paul's writing was not God's prejudices. Responsible Christians cannot close their minds to the knowledge explosion in the field of human sexuality by hiding behind a Pauline quotation and claiming that this is "the word of the Lord."

Apostle Paul's Restrictive Rules

On The Role Of Women In Church

1 Corinthians 11:5; 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Cor 14:34-35 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." 1 Cor 11:5 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." 1 Timothy 2:11 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12

Paul's Rules? or God's Rules?

Women Are Not Allowed To Speak, Teach or Ask Questions in Church And To Wear A Head Covering When Praying and Prophesying 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 & 11:5

Apostle Paul gave specific instructions that women were not allowed to both speak in church, ask questions in church and especially not to teach in church. Women were also to always have their heads covered when praying and prophesying. Yet, why is it so many churches (almost all) do not follow Paul's words? There are valid reasons they do not. One reason Paul could have spoken this, is because he felt it could be a stumbling block to many persons who were brought up in a society that put women second and behind men and the allowance of woman to have equal stature with men would stumble and prevent them from joining the newly formed Christian religion. Another possible reason could be Paul's ignorance and upbringing in the Jewish religious society. Yet without getting into the validity of Paul's words here and the reason behind it, it comes to question the fact that almost all churches allow women to speak in them, ask

Responsible Christians cannot close their minds to the knowledge explosion in the field of human sexuality by hiding behind a Pauline quotation and claiming that this is "the word of the Lord."

questions in them, while others go much further and allow women to teach in them as well, while almost none enforce women to wear head coverings, with the exception of some sects, such as the Mennonites, Amish and others. The question arises here as to, why do they allow this and yet at the same time inconsistently quote Apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians and Romans chapter 1 to support a complete ban on homosexuality? This clearly shows how churches and the modern day Christian religious organizations pick and choose which ever scriptures they decide to apply literally, reason on, or just ignore. This also shows the hypocrisy and ignorance of man made religious organizations with their fundamentalist, black and white way of thinking. Somehow legalism, intellectualism and preconceived teachings always take the forefront over mercy, love, empathy and understanding, as they did in the days of Christ. (6)

The Silent Text and Doctrinaire Prejudice (8)

The New Testament takes no demonstrable position on homosexuality. To suggest that Paul's references to excesses of sexual indulgence involving homosexual behavior are indicative of a general position in opposition to same-sex eroticism is as unfounded as arguing that his condemnation of drunkenness implies opposition to the drinking of wine.

Jeffrey S. Sikes, in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, concludes his study of the biblical texts with these words:

"Thus the bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today. The bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression o human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God's intentions for humanity."

Victor Paul Furnish, in the conclusion of his chapter on homosexuality in his 1979 book, The Moral Teaching of Paul, writes:

"Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct, his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. . . . It is a mistake to invoke Paul's name in support of any specific position on these matters."

As early as in 1964, German theologian, Helmut Thielicke, in the volume of his Theological Ethics dealing with sex and homosexuality after a thoroughgoing discussion of all of the relevant biblical passages, wrote,

"There is not the slightest excuse for maligning the constitutional homosexual morally or theologically."

He went on to observe, however, that the continuing willingness to do so on the part of the Christian churches has nothing ot do with the biblical texts, and very much to do with what he calls "doctrinaire prejudices.

Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment, "homosexuality is sinful," is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly.

Yet the matter remains unsettled. In an article in Christianity Today,"Why Is This Important?" Stanton L. Jones gives three reasons." First, the church's historically high view of the authority of scripture is threatened by efforts at revising the church's position on homosexuality." second reason is that if homosexuality. His second reason is that if homosexuals are defined primarily by their sexual inclinations, this definition is contrary to the fundamental definition of Christian identity. The third and most critical reason, however is this: "We can only change our position on homosexuality by changing our fundamental stance on biblical authority, by changing our core view of sexuality, and by changing the meaning and character of Christ's call on our lives."

The first of Jones's objections, that the authority of scripture is challenged by a revision of the church's position on homosexuality does not take account of the fact that the authority of scripture seems not to have been challenged by the revision of the church's position on women, Jews and slavery. Nor does he appear to take into account the fact that, high view or not, the scripture has so little to say about homosexuality that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church's debates about homosexuality or address itself to the modern complexity of human sexuality. It should also be noted that it is not homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual desires, but it is invariably the case that persons opposed to homosexuality define it and homosexuals exclusively in sexual terms. Finally, of course, what Jones sees as a "problem" is in fact the only intellectually and spiritually responsible way forward. We must change our position on homosexuality if that position is based upon a prejudicial and uninformed reading of scripture. Our fundamental stance on biblical authority ought by no means to be an absolute; that is a form of Protestant idolatry. Indeed, our core view of sexuality ought to change and must, and the "meaning and character of Christ's call on our lives" thus is not merely changed but enlarged to reflect a dynamic and inclusive gospel.

What is at stake is not simply the authority of scripture, as conservative opponents to homosexual legitimization like to say, but the authority of the culture of interpretation by which these people read scripture in such a way as to lend legitimacy to their doctrinaire prejudices. Thus the battle for the Bible, of which homosexuality is the last front is really the battle for the prevailing culture, of which the Bible itself is a mere trophy and icon. Such a cadre of cultural conservatives would rather defend their ideology in the name of the authority of scripture than concede that their self-serving reading of that scripture might just be wrong and that both the Bible and the God who inspires it may be more gracious, just, and inclusive than they can presently afford to be.

The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which is surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem" of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it. (8)

Culturism - Prejudice and Abuse of Scriptures

"To be biblical may well mean to move beyond the Bible itself to the larger principles that can be derived from the Christian faith (God's Spirit) of which the Bible is a part, but for which the Bible cannot possible be a substitute."(5)

God is a Spirit and we must worship in Spirit and truth." John 4:24

It is almost impossible not to transcend one's own particular place in the world and in time, for we are who we are and where we are. Our culture gives us our meaning for ourselves, our identity. We inherit our culture we are born and grown in. We have the fight between living in two worlds, one the visible and the other invisible.

Peter J. Gomes relates:

"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 mean to stand. In other words, scripture is invariable used to support the status quo, no matter what the status quo, and despite the revolutionary origins and implications of scripture itself." (7)

Culturism is the worship of a culture in which the Bible is forced to conform to the spirit of the age. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, introduced his followers to a radically different culture from the one in which He lived and died. His resurrection was the unambiguous sign that the new age had begun. As we live in this age, if we are to truly walk in imitation of Him, we must put God's word above our culture.

Native Americans

The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in the winter of 1620 and found cleared cornfields and sick, plagued Native Americans, all of this they interpreted to be a divine act of God, as they likened themselves to the Children of Israel obtaining the land of Canaan from the cursed Canaanites, the native Americans, punished by God. They established the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny," their belief that is was God's will for them to so call civilize and murder the native Americans and plunder their land. All of this supported with their interpretation of scripture, for "the Bible says so."

African Americans

Both slavery and segregation were supported in America on the interpreted moral grounds of the Bible. The were part of the "divine plan." Gomes relates:

"Christians, by and large, saw no such contradiction at al, for it was all in the Bible. . . They knew their Bible, and they knew that the basis of the subjugation of the African was to be found in Genesis 9:18-27. This is the account of the debauchery of Noah, and the indiscreet discovery of his naked drunkenness by his son Ham. Ham told his brothers of their father's condition, but they, averting their eyes from the humiliating sight, did not see what Ham had seen, and were therefore spared the curse that Noah laid upon Ham and his . The curse on Canaan. Ham's son, found in Genesis 9:25, was this: "Cursed be Canaan: a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." (3)

"The Bible's inclusively is claimed by the poor, the discriminated against, persons of color, homosexuals, women, and all persons beyond the conventional definitions of Western civilization." Peter J. Gomes (1)

The American south,very convincingly, used this curse on Ham to support two great fears of the Christian white population. One, the rebelling of the sons of Canaan and a thirst for revenge and second, that the black male would seduce and overcome sexually unsatisfied white women. Two cultural phobias of the white population used to interpret scripture. Here the people, primarily the Baptists, who would lynch, castrate, and horribly mutate black men on a Saturday night, and pray and praise God in church on Sunday, without a hint of guilt. Why? "The Bible told them so."

Not only did New Testament morality fail to liberate the slaves or even to mitigate their lot in this life, but it required of the slaves obedience to their masters, even those masters who were not Christian, as a part of their duty to Christ. Slaves were free only to obey, and these arrangements were ordained by God, sanctioned by the patriarchs, tolerated by Jesus, approved of by Paul, and enshrined in the Bible. (Eph 6:5-9, Joshua 9; Genesis 21; 47:21-24; 1 Cor 7; Philemon, Titus 2:9-10)

What is so amazing is the texts of the Bible have never changed, nor new translations to clarify textual issues. No hidden or lost manuscripts, no startling revelations. What has changed, however, is the climate of interpretation. The texts have not changed but we have and the world with us. Scripture, like Jesus Christ himself, may be the same yesterday, today, and forever, but our capacity to read scripture and to appropriate Jesus Christ and his teachings are not.

"It is not scripture that has changed, but rather the moral imagination by which we see ourselves, and see and read scripture. It is that moral imagination that tells us what we see and hear in scripture, and it is that same imagination that allows us to translate those transforming images into the world in which we find ourselves. The moral imagination, liberated from slavery to the literal text, also liberates from the cultural captivity of context both ancient and contemporary, and is informed by nothing less than what Christians call the Holy Spirit. This is why the book of Hebrews describes scripture as "sharper than a two-edged sword." This is why scripture is referred to as "the lively oracles of God." (4)

Alcohol, Temperance and The Prohibition

Despite the unfortunate actions of Noah's drunkenness in Genesis 9:20-27, and the terrible consequences that befell his second son, the cursed Ham, no doctrine against drink can be found.

Psalm 104 both praises God and food and wine. Jesus' first miracle was the turning of water to fine wine for a wedding feast and subsequently, drank wine at His last meal, the "Last Supper." Apostle Paul had recommended Timothy to drink wine for medicinal purposes, yet warned the Christian community not to be slanders or slaves to drink. Yet despite this lack of support of total abstination of alcohol consumption, , serious and forceful theologians, biblical scholars and Protestant religions introduced a series of ingenious interpretive devices against All alcohol consumption using the scriptures as their authority.

Two main arguments were, first, the patriarchs of old practiced other now condemned practices, such as polygamy and the requirement of circumcision and second, they argued a strange "two-wine theory." The one being the intoxicating type that was condemned, the other being the Welsh's grape juice formula, which taken in moderation was the type Jesus drank. Both of these arguments failed under the true test of Scripture and Spirit.

Finally, what brought truth to light, was the "principle over practice." In 1958 Roland Bainton, in support of his own total abstinence of alcohol, introduced the interpretation of a stand based on biblical principles over practice. The Bible was a book of principles and not of precedents. The principles govern our behavior in the matter of many things, contrary to biblical practice.

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." Romans 14:20-21

Thanks to the The Watchtower Observer For Supplying This. An Excellent Letter Written To Dr. Laura.

Open letter to Dr. Laura Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 & cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, but the letter could as well have been to the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, & I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws & how to follow them. 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day & age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male & female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it's a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for negotiation here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse & blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do w/people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal & unchanging. Your devoted disciple & adoring fan, Richard Wilbur

Paul's words at 1 Corinthians of our bodies being temples of God's Holy Spirit, as living sacrifices were not to be abused. And secondly, Paul's words at Romans, relates our actions should never harm or stumble others in faith.

"Bainton liberates us from a simpleminded bondage to texts whose context may be unrelated and unhelpful to our own. In other words, to be biblical may well mean to move beyond the Bible itself to the larger principles that can be derived from the Christian faith of which the Bible is a part, but for which the Bible cannot possible be a substitute. To determine with what Christian principles one reads the Bible is to undertake an enterprise that requires more rather than less engagement with the Bible and with the cultures of its interpretation. It involves a rather a rather daunting effort to see beyond the diversions of text and context, and of precedent and practice, and into the far more complex landscape of principle and teaching by which the whole is made considerably larger that the sum of its parts. Contrary to popular thinking, this invariably means giving more attention to the Bible, and more rather than less care to its study and interpretation." (5)

Allowing the prejudices of culture and arrogance in reading scripture is a great sin and does not contain the Spirit of God. God's Spirit interprets scripture with mercy, love and compassion, anything less is not of His source. Culturism and the prejudices of the society we live in continue to allow many to interpret scripture and justify teachings and actions that are not in line with both God's Word and His Spirit. When taken His Word alone, minus His Spirit, texts can be interpreted to support and allow our cultural backgrounds with complete support and justification. We can easily take God's Word, an inclusive book, and put it to exclusive use, labeling others under curses and sins that are not in reality apparent.

"The Bible's inclusively is claimed by the poor, the discriminated against, persons of color, homosexuals, women, and all persons beyond the conventional definitions of Western civilization." (1)

Summary

Sexuality is more than procreation, it can bring two persons into a special bonding where the "two can become one flesh" and connect like no other way two persons can. It can be unitive and bring two persons into a relationship where two free spirits "become one." Sex can be productive without being reproductive. When sex between two persons, whether same sex or opposite, is between two consenting adults in a permanent, monogamous, faithful and intimate way, a beautiful relationship happens which is blessed by our creator, the God of the bible and his son, Jesus Christ. Sexual relations goes far beyond procreation and acts as an emotional bond bringing two monogamous persons the greatest form of love between two human beings.

I wish to end this page with following words from John Spong, for I don't think I can say it any better,

"That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, the biblical references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but the ever-present prejudice born our of a pervasive ignorance that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex. Recommended Reading   If new knowledge about the cause and meaning of homosexuality confronts us, then we must be willing to relinquish our prejudice and the prejudice of Holy Scripture and turn our attention to loving our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, supporting them, and relating to them as a part of God's good creation. That will inevitable include accepting, affirming, and blessing those gay and lesbian relationships that, like al holy relationships, produce the fruits of the Spirit-love, joy, peace, patience, and self-sacrifice-and to do so in the confidence that thought this may not be in accordance with the literal letter of the biblical texts, it is in touch with the life-giving Spirit that always breaks the bondage of literalism. (18)

LINK: John Spong's - A Catechesis* On Homosexuality