Re: Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?
Brian J Dawson
"RoB WAde" <rob_c_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130884803....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?
> By Warren Throckmorton, PhD
>
> Let's look at His key statements on sexual ethics.
>
>
>
> Many "gay" religionists insist that Jesus never mentioned
> homosexuality and thus could not have opposed it. Often conservatives
> counter that He taught against any form of sexual expression other than
> heterosexual marriage, so He did not need to specify every sexual act
> outside of marriage for condemnation. What is the correct position?
>
>
> Certainly, Jesus did address the topic of sexual ethics and marriage.
> In Matthew 19:4b-9, Jesus said:
>
>
> "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them
> male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his
> father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
> one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore
> what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him,
> 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to
> put her away?' He said to them, 'Moses, because of the hardness of
> your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning
> it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for
> sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever
> marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
> Jesus' disciples were nervous at this teaching. In fact, since Jesus
> made divorce much more difficult to attain than Moses did, they
> wondered aloud if marriage was such a good thing after all ("If such
> is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
> Matthew 19:10). Like many people today, the disciples thought the
> fidelity and permanence taught by Jesus might be too difficult for
> anyone to follow.
>
>
> To the skepticism of the disciples, Jesus responded:
>
>
> "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been
> given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's
> womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are
> eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's
> sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."
> For years, I did not give much thought to who Jesus might have been
> referencing here by the use of the term "eunuchs." I assumed that
> all eunuchs were males who were castrated or otherwise physically
> incapable to have sexual relations. Recently, however, I have begun to
> wonder if the Greek word eunouchoi (eunuchs) might also include someone
> without natural attraction to the opposite sex.
>
>
> Could Jesus be referring here to male homosexuals as being among those
> who experience no other sex attraction, and if so, does this passage
> signal the blessing of Jesus on homosexuality?
>
>
> A recent paper by a Norwegian theologian, Raghnild Schanke, asserts
> that Jesus was indeed referring to several categories of people
> including asexual persons and those who would fit the modern concept of
> homosexuality. She notes that many eunuchs in antiquity were capable of
> sexual relations but did not seem to have natural desire for women. She
> amasses an impressive array of ancient references to some eunuchs being
> disinterested in the opposite sex even though physically capable.
>
>
> To address these questions, I turned to one of the top Biblical
> scholars in the world regarding sexuality, Dr. Robert Gagnon of the
> Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Author of the encyclopedic The Bible
> and Homosexual Practice, Dr. Gagnon commented, "I think that the
> phrase 'eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb'
> [Matthew 19:12] is probably an inclusive group consisting of any man
> who lacks sexual interest in women. This group would include both men
> who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose
> genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include
> both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive
> same-sex attractions."
>
>
> Regarding Jesus' phrase "eunuchs who were born thus" Dr. Gagnon
> said, "The saying does suggest a recognition on the part of Jesus and
> early Christianity that some men are born in such a way that they do
> not develop, as adolescents and adults, other-sex attractions, for
> whatever reason." Such men are not born gay, but rather without
> responsiveness to the opposite sex. Attractions to the same sex may or
> may not develop during the formative years via a combination of
> temperamental and environmental factors.
>
>
> There is a modern-day, experiential validity to this interpretation. I
> have counseled individuals who from their earliest recollections have
> little or no attraction to the opposite sex. Also, the opposite-sex
> desire of some is hindered due to traumatic circumstances in life,
> whether physical injury or emotional trauma ("eunuchs made that way
> by men"). And still others choose celibacy for "the kingdom of
> heaven." Note that Jesus does not condemn such persons for their
> situation.
>
>
> So do homosexual relationships have the endorsement of Jesus? Not so,
> says Dr. Gagnon:
>
>
>
> The implication of Jesus' saying is that all such "born eunuchs"
> have no option for engaging in sexual activity outside of a man-woman
> bond. Furthermore, fidelity to this teaching does not require that one
> become exclusively heterosexually responsive with no homosexual
> temptation. However, it does require abstinence from homosexual bonds.
>
> For classical Christianity, the union of male and female is much more
> than a sociological convenience but provides imagery for some of its
> central teachings (e.g., Christ as the bridegroom and the church as his
> bride). The teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19 deepen this commitment to
> male-female unions by very specifically considering people who either
> are unable or choose not to form such sexual relationships.
>
>
> Thus, if one supports same-sex relations or unions as sound
> ecclesiastical policy, one must do it with some other philosophical
> base than can be found in these teachings of Jesus.
>
>
> Scriptures are taken from the New King James Version.
>
Thou Shalt Not Cross Post! Well when it goes above 3 or 4 many ISP's will
kill the post.
-------------
First I believe that the OT does indeed condemn homosexuality. But then
again it condones slavery, genicide and capital punishment for breaking the
sabbath. You fundementalists never cease to amaze me how you will zero in on
passages "x,y and z" yet drop concommitant passages "a,b and c" from your
awareness. If such passages condone the above SINS then what credence should
we give to "x,y and z"?
Second, Moses did not give his opinion concerning divorce, he gave God's
LAW. You know the same yesterday, today and tommorrow! Jesus contradicted
Moses. Now the ECUSA contradicts Jesus by accepting divorce! We in the ECUSA
and mainstream protestantism generally distance the Torah five books as the
least trustworthy. Next we give more credence to the prophets and the
remaining OT. Finally we give more authority to the NT. Within the NT the
Gospels have the highest authority. In the Gospels Jesus words are the
ULTIMATE highest authority. Yet Jesus condemns divorce and we accept it! So
obviously we don't accept solo scriptura.
Third, your equivacation of the label "eunuch" is an example of how
fundementalists will do anything to distance themselves from such hatefull
passages of the scripture.
Deuteronomy 23:1
1 "He that is wounded in the stones or hath his private member cut off
shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Proverbs 30:5-6
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6 Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Matthew 19:12
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's
womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there
be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's
sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
**** One person in the ECUSA NG told me that the last passage means it is
better to castrate yourself than to get divorced. He quoted the context of
the passage as Jesus was teaching against divorce. This bible is nothing but
a bunch of contradictions. If we were to accept your equivacation of the
label "eunuch" then nothing in the bible means what it says on the surface.
The gospel then would NOT have been published worldwide as the real meaning
is not in the book but in the interpetation and that is variable! Those of
us in the mainstream ECUSA have no problem with that. My dad was divroced
and this caused him no end of grief with his prior Roman Catholic
affliation. Which by the way makes me a bastard! In Deuteronomy that I
quoted above the following passage says:
Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation
of the LORD.
So you can see I have a vested interest in this debate being the Bastard
that I am!!! (some in the ECUSA NG will concur :)
Finally Jesus has some strange things to say in the Gospel.
**** Gosh golly I thought Jesus loved me, you and everyone else.
John 21:20-23
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following
them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and
had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he
asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is
that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among
the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he
would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return,
what is that to you?"
*** Finally with modern science teaching the variations of conditions of men
why the hate? "WHAT IS THAT TO YOU" as the gospel says?
Brian J Dawson
Michael
<nos...@spiderfree.com> wrote:
Not without a jubliee and nothing comparable to Dredd Scott styte slavery.
>genicide
Not really.
>and capital punishment for breaking the
> sabbath.
You forgot to understand that Christians place their sabbath rest in their
Lord and Saviour after the cross, without that rest, one fulfills his own
'capital punishement'.
You fundementalists never cease to amaze me how you will zero in on
> passages
It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can say that slavery and genicide
are advocated by Scripture in an overbroad and misleading perspective of
half truths and that compassion should be provided for those who commit
cold blooded pre meditated murder.
snip
>In the Gospels Jesus words are the
>ULTIMATE highest authority. Yet Jesus condemns divorce and we accept it! So
>obviously we don't accept solo scriptura.
Actually, we do, divorce is not the unpardonable sin, nor is all divorce a
sin, God Himself divorced both Judah and Israel, for lawful cause.
--
"-----------------"
May God Bless You
Michael
Brian J Dawson
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-021...@192.168.1.101...
The Jubliee has to do with believers not aliens. Yes there are passages that
preach freedom. That is the one we see in the Moses movie where he says to
go and preach freedom to all nations. Unfortunatly the Bible has two sides.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you;
from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary
residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country,
and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as
inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule
over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
****
Note it says they become "property". This is the book that is to be my moral
guide. Tell me the difference between this and Adolf Hitler (see below)
Deuteronomy 4:1
1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow
them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that
the LORD , the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I
command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD
your God that I give you.
-----
Deuteronomy 20:16
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as
an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
**** God's Law! The same yesterday, The same today, The same tommorrow!! Now
lecture me please concerning "Ethical relativism". This book sanctions
GENICIDE!
Joshua 6:21 AND 26
21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every
living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys"
26 At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: "Cursed before the LORD
is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:
*****Ah but not always! Some times it's ok to spare just a few!!!
Numbers 31:17
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18
but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
**** What we learn here is that a Virgin is a TERRIBLE thing to waste! Why
not ravage one today for the Lord? If those gays followed God's law and
ravage a virgin for Yahweh then maybe they would not be such perverts! Yes
indeed the Bible! GOD'S LAW!
The same yesterday!
The same today!
The same tommorrow!
Do I hear a "Seig Heil"? Yet the Bible PROVES evolution! Thats right. This
book has more hate in it than the Koran. Yet modern day Jews are "evolved"
from these satanic teachings. By developing "selective" attention we can
take passages "A, D and G" and create a "rosary of passages" to become our
theology while at the same time leaving out the delightfull ones that I
mentioned above. Now tell me that isn't EVOLUTION!
Brian J Dawson
Michael
<nos...@spiderfree.com> wrote:
Not exactly, it has to do with all bondage.
Yes there are passages that
> preach freedom. That is the one we see in the Moses movie where he says to
> go and preach freedom to all nations. Unfortunatly the Bible has two sides.
> Leviticus 25:44-46
> 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you;
> from them you may buy slaves.
Today, 'slaves' are those who own mortages and employment contracts.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary
> residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country,
> and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as
> inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule
> over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
God advice for those 'ruling' over slaves even to this day. However, you
do stop too soon, v. 55* For unto me the children of Israel are servants
>
> ****
>
> Note it says they become "property". This is the book that is to be my moral
> guide. Tell me the difference between this and Adolf Hitler (see below)
A lot, 1) Hitler did not rule without ruthlessness, and 2) Hitler was no
servant of the Lord God, and 3) Hitler did not believe in Jubilee.
>
> Deuteronomy 4:1
>
> 1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow
> them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that
> the LORD , the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I
> command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD
> your God that I give you.
>
> -----
>
> Deuteronomy 20:16
> 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as
> an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
And why was that? You do leave that out in err.
>
>
>
> **** God's Law! The same yesterday, The same today, The same tommorrow!! Now
> lecture me please concerning "Ethical relativism". This book sanctions
> GENICIDE!
Not actually, start in Genesis 3 and understand the context of the
situation. the Canninites were not kind helpless victems.
>
> Joshua 6:21 AND 26
> 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every
> living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys"
And the purpose for this? You do leave that out in err.
>
>
>
> 26 At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: "Cursed before the LORD
> is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:
>
>
>
> *****Ah but not always! Some times it's ok to spare just a few!!!
Not really, but that apparently went over your head.
>
> Numbers 31:17
>
> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18
> but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
And that was for what purpose? You do leave out the context in err.
>
>
>
> **** What we learn here is that a Virgin is a TERRIBLE thing to waste! Why
> not ravage one today for the Lord? If those gays followed God's law and
> ravage a virgin for Yahweh then maybe they would not be such perverts! Yes
> indeed the Bible! GOD'S LAW!
God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but both the context and
the covenant are not the same, nor can they be understood as you bundle
them.
>
> The same yesterday!
>
> The same today!
>
> The same tommorrow!
>
>
>
> Do I hear a "Seig Heil"?
No, other than the same rebellion that Adolph gave to God.
Yet the Bible PROVES evolution!
Tee hee hee, and now you add comedy to your routine?
Thats right. This
> book has more hate in it than the Koran.
What are your proofs for that?
Yet modern day Jews are "evolved"
> from these satanic teachings.
And now you believe that Scripture is satanic? Such Biblical illiteracy
is legendary amoung the Christophobes.
By developing "selective" attention we can
> take passages "A, D and G" and create a "rosary of passages" to become our
> theology
You mean like you did?
while at the same time leaving out the delightfull ones that I
> mentioned above.
Your own posting kind of proves your theory, eh?
>Now tell me that isn't EVOLUTION!
That isn't evolution.
Ham
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-091...@192.168.1.101...
Michael
<ham...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Piss off, queer!
Coming from you, perhaps that can only be considered a compliment.
Brian J Dawson
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-091...@192.168.1.101...
Michael,
I did not leave anything out. I mentioned that there are indeed passages
against slavery and for preaching freedom to all nations. Just as the old
movie about Moses states. I do mention that other passages exist that we
don't want to read.
There is NO excuse for calling for the genicide of men, woman and children.
You seem to imply that I left out a "good reason" for such satanic behavior.
What because they were polytheists? So are you ready to go to the mall and
kill everyone in the New Age bookstore?
This book is filled with hate. Yes I understand God's Word got filtered
through a ancient tribes identity crisis and struggle in a hostile world.
That we now no longer read such trash as God's Word in our church's (at
least not mine) is proof positive of Evolution!
But none the less these passages remain as part of the "passage pool" for
use. Your usage of "mortgage payements" and "employement contracts" as
examples of modern day slavery are beyond laughter! This reminds me of
apologetic Muslims who say that "Jihad" has to do with waging war on ones
addiction to drugs and alcohol. Since "Islam" means literally surrender to
God! I can find more support for their rationalizations then yours!
Finally the book damn well LIES! It says the world was about to end and yet
2,000 years latter it has not.
Mark 9:1
1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them
that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the
kingdom of God come with power.
Luke 9:27
27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
before they see the kingdom of God."
This is the book that is to be our moral guide?
Brian J Dawson
Michael
<nos...@spiderfree.com> wrote:
Who says it was 'genocide'? You left out who these people were, and what
they were doing.
> You seem to imply that I left out a "good reason" for such satanic behavior.
More than an implication,
> What because they were polytheists?
No.
So are you ready to go to the mall and
> kill everyone in the New Age bookstore?
No, that is not the issue you overlooked.
>
> This book is filled with hate.
At least according to the disciples of the satanic.
Yes I understand God's Word got filtered
> through a ancient tribes identity crisis and struggle in a hostile world.
Hmmm, that may be your first misconception.
> That we now no longer read such trash as God's Word in our church's (at
> least not mine) is proof positive of Evolution!
Actually, it is more likely proof of the antithesis of
evolution-devolution which is consistent with man being created perfect,
and then the fall.
> But none the less these passages remain as part of the "passage pool" for
> use. Your usage of "mortgage payements" and "employement contracts" as
> examples of modern day slavery are beyond laughter!
then are you free to do whatever you want to at work, or are you
constrained with limits to ensure your next meal?
This reminds me of
> apologetic Muslims who say that "Jihad" has to do with waging war on ones
> addiction to drugs and alcohol. Since "Islam" means literally surrender to
> God! I can find more support for their rationalizations then yours!
Your loss, not mine.
>
> Finally the book damn well LIES! It says the world was about to end and yet
> 2,000 years latter it has not.
> Mark 9:1
Depends upon your understaning of time, it is relative, not linear.
> 1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them
> that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the
> kingdom of God come with power.
Still true today, what is your point?
>
>
>
> Luke 9:27
> 27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death
> before they see the kingdom of God."
>
> This is the book that is to be our moral guide?
Its believed by billions, and with good reason.
>
> Brian J Dawson
>
> www.AquarianFreeThinker.com
newzguys
Did Jesus Bless Homosexuality?
By Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Let's look at His key statements on sexual ethics.
http://gcc.savvior.com/Did%20Jesus%20Bless%20Homosexuality.php?view_a...
---------
The fact is had I not brought up to Warren that "eunuchs, which
were so born from their mother's womb" meant that hermaphrodites
could marry, and therefore Jesus said same sex marriage was ok,
Warren would not have even turn his mind to this passage. In
debating him I proved him full of contradiction to what he himself
said as:
"It is hard to imagine but true that at one time there was no such
thing as the concept of a gay identity. It was the 1860s and
political activity by Ulrichs and Kertbeny to remove criminal
stigma from such behavior that was the impetus for the invention
of the homosexual."
By Warren Throckmorton, PhD, July 2, 2003
http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/throckmorton_ulrich_7_2_03...
Warren cannot wrap his mind around what he himself says. That
they had no concept of homosexuality at the time the bible was
written. Therefore they cannot in any way be taking to or about
homosexuality. The very concept is foreign to their way of
thinking. It is a physical impossibility that the bible says
one word about homosexuality, they had no words for nor a concept
of homosexuality at the time the bible was written.
Warren was trying to slip in some Freudian gobbledegook by
introducing what Dr. Gagnon said as:
"Regarding Jesus' phrase "eunuchs who were born thus" Dr. Gagnon
said, "The saying does suggest a recognition on the part of Jesus and
early Christianity that some men are born in such a way that they do
not develop, as adolescents and adults, other-sex attractions, for
whatever reason." Such men are not born gay, but rather without
responsiveness to the opposite sex. Attractions to the same sex may or
may not develop during the formative years via a combination of
temperamental and environmental factors."
Conservative like Warren love to cling to the long denounced notion
that homosexuality is due to an immature sexual response in the
formative years via a combination of temperamental and environmental
factors. That all you have to do is cure them and they will be all
better. Warren goes on to ask the question:
"So do homosexual relationships have the endorsement of Jesus? Not so,
says Dr. Gagnon:
... 'However, it does require abstinence from homosexual bonds.'
... The teachings of Jesus in Matthew 19 deepen this commitment to
male-female unions by very specifically considering people who either
are unable or choose not to form such sexual relationships.
Thus, if one supports same-sex relations or unions as sound
ecclesiastical policy, one must do it with some other philosophical
base than can be found in these teachings of Jesus."
Matthew 19 in no way addresses sexuality at all, the context is
the bill of divorce (Deu 24:1-4). Warren never even mentioned that
Jesus said a "wife" can be put away for fornication. Which in
Mat 5:32 is in context only of divorce. The context is marriage
and divorce, and nothing to do with sexuality, other than temple
prostitution and property rights violations. Fornication is having
sex in the worship of other gods, idolatry. Having sex with another
man's woman was a property rights violation. Adultery is the
stealing of another man's property. Women and children were property
of the father or the husband. That is the context of Lev 18, property
rights, Molech is in Lev 18 before Lev 18:22 because that is the
context of that verse, temple prostitution Lev 18:21-24, Lev 20:2-5.
A man owns his wife and children and God own everything, you have
no right to give your seed (semen or children) to Molech. Divorcing
a woman would be a breach of contract with God. He gave you that
property in your covenant, you have no right to give it away.
1 Cor 7:
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth;
but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to
whom she will; only in the Lord.
Jesus said:
Mat 5:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.
Deu 22:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's
father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he
hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's
skirt.
It was not until 1215 that heterosexual marriage was officially
declared a sacrament by the Roman Catholic Church, and consent
was recognized as a necessary component of the union. Before this
marriage was a bill of sales for the property of the wife.
"Eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb" is by
definition intersexuals. Therefore hermaphrodites are covered
by this definition. Anyone a hermaphrodite would marry would be
the same sex, because they have both sexes. Jesus says in Mat 19:12
that even intersexuals can marry. The context of the verse is
marriage. Not all can stay married forever, but "He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it." (Marriage)
Those like Warren have a need to see homosexuality where none
exists. They have a need to have a justification for their hate
of homosexuality and to justify their need to eradicate it. By
mythical cures and tawdry use of out dated psychology and attempts
to make the normal, abnormal. For them homosexuality is a cause,
not a part of the spectrum of sexuality. That everything must fit
into a dichotomy box and all is only black and white. When the
world is actually a spectrum of sexes that do not fit in to one
box alone, neither physically nor mentally. He cannot wrap his
mind around what he himself said, that they had no concept of
homosexuality at the time the bible was written. That what
he and his type see as homosexuality was only idolatrous acts
of sexual religious rituals to fertility gods, that had nothing
to do with homosexuality. No more so than is drinking the blood
and eating the body of Christ is cannibalism. They had sex with
Chemarim priests and temple prostitutes to give seed (semen)
to these fertility gods, in hopes that these gods would bestow
fertility upon them, there land and animals. Warren needs to
see this as a homosexual act in need of a cure and of condemnation.
For those like Warren the sky is constantly at risk of falling
and were it not for them waving their hands frantically in the
air, the sky would fall. What they do not realize is if they put
down their hands the sky stays up all by it self. That there is
no need to fix what is not broke. That it is physically impossible
to cure a homosexual, because as soon as you do, by definition,
they are bisexuals, and bisexual just switch sides. The so called
cures are a manifestation as a result of the spectrum of sexuality.
Homosexuals do not need to be cured, they need to be let alone.
That if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman must
have the same right as that man to marry a woman, or their equal
protection and due process of the law has been violated. What
needs to be cured is the prejudice that causes some to seek a
cure. Enshrining bigotry into the US Constituiton makes a
declaration that "in and of itself is an invitation to subject
homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in
the private spheres." - Lawrence and Garner v. Texas
For a full history of the subject see:
legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Brian J Dawson
"Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-281...@192.168.1.106...
It says CHILDREN!! Gives a new meaning now to "suffer" the little children
to come onto me!
My God must I be a LIAR FOR SCRIPTURE? Is this what the True God wants of
me? I don't think so. This book is a mere diary of a desert tribe in their
quest for the Cosmic Deity. Sometimes they find Him/Her other times there
own ethnocentricity takes over. Meanwhile you the reader must separate your
own "existential anxiety" from believing the forumula: "If I doubt this book
THEN I loose all meaning in my life and spirituality". BULL who says so? No
I am not an atheist. But I do believe in calling "shit" for what it is -
"SHIT". I will not be a liar for scripture. The True God would not want us
to do so. Besides She does not get offended by my posts only Mad Daddy
Yahweh would.
Brian J Dawson
www.AquarianFreeThinker.com
No your not having a spiritual experience - You have a broken broomstick up
your ass! Time to take the masochism out of religion!
go4it
In the verses where Jesus is at a marriage and turns water into wine, he
[ Jesus ] may have been the groom being married in that situation! Because
of the way he talks to his mother and tells her to do things! If this is
true than by personal example Christ was married and was intimate with his
wife, even though nothing is said about him having children by her. It is
assumed that he would keep all the commandments to multiply and replenish
the earth too!
Historically too Rabbis were not supposed to become Rabbis without ruling
over a marriage ie wife and children, long before they decided to rule over
a group of followers! The old testament is clear in that-
It helps if you look at more than one testament in these matters because
Jesus or Jehovah of the old testament gave us the laws and commandments
through his prophets etc.
Did not christ say he fullfilled ALL the law and the prophets? I'm sure
that he did. He fulfilled ever Jot and tittle -- didn't he?
Not a single thing was left undone by the master and lord of this earth,
before its creation by him and in his earthly life by him, let alone after
his death -- Jesus did it all!
The vary way and respect he had for woman was evident by the many woman that
followed him around, who worshipped him and took care of his dead body,
which is another thing, by Jewish law only family members or wives were
allowed to handle the body of dead and take care of them for the funeral!
Therefore Mary Magdalene could of easily been one of wives of Jesus, so I
doubt if Abraham did more than Christ is this respect.
Christ may have had more than one wife, which to some would be worse than
homosexuality, but not according to the old testament. Now again Abraham
the Father of the faithful, as well as others including Joseph of egypt as
well as Jacob all had more than one wife, even moses etc.
Christ was more righteous than them all and he may have done the same -- its
just too bad we dont have a more complete story of Christ in the bible-
If either of these possiblities are true -- Christ in no way had any thing
todo with homosexuality, period!!
Roger L. Martin
"Brian J Dawson" <nos...@spiderfree.com> wrote in message
news:HESlf.10334$nt5.968@trndny05...