See some very interesting articles I have written.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
ARTICLES
Did Jesus ever teach about
homosexuality?
There are no recorded words of Jesus about
homosexuality, either as same-sex orientation or
same-sex activity. While we do not know Jesus’
actual views on this topic, we can surmise his
probable views.
Jesus’ ideas on same-sex behavior would have been
partly formed by his Jewish background and religious
education. He would have accepted man-woman sex
as the usual practice and he would have known that
Leviticus prohibited full sex between males. So
Jesus probably agreed with his culture’s view
that sex between men is bad.
Jesus’ only implied reference to sex between men is
its possible inclusion in his condemnation of illicit sex
(assuming that illicit sex is any sexual activity
condemned in the Old Testament) (Mark 7:21). On
the other hand, it is possible that Jesus was referring
to gay men when he mentioned “born eunuchs” –
without any condemnation (Matthew 19:12). In biblical
times, such men were anatomically whole but were
unable or unwilling to have sex with women. They
either were not at all interested in sex or were
interested, but only with other men.
The reason that Jesus is “silent” on same-sex
orientation or same-sex activity could be because he
did not think it a relevant or important topic. Or it
could be because his public or intimate comments
were consistent with his Jewish culture and so were
not considered to be worth recording. We can only
guess at the reason.
(January 2012)
Why “The Children Are Free” is wrong
“The Children Are Free” is well-intentioned and easy
to read, but unfortunately has many false and
misleading statements.
The book attempts to show that the Bible’s anti-
homosexuality verses don’t apply today because they
do not address loving, committed same-sex Christian
relationships. Instead, it is claimed that the verses
refer to pagan temple prostitution, gang rape, morally
weak people, or men who force themselves sexually
on others. This conclusion is based on false
assumptions and false logic.
One example is the book’s treatment of Leviticus 18
and 20. The authors try to work out the meaning of
the Leviticus 18 and 20 prohibitions on homosexual
behavior by looking at what form such behavior
commonly took in Egyptian and Canaanite societies.
They conclude that it was homosexual temple
prostitution. However while this may have been the
most publicly visible form of same-sex behavior, they
ignore that such behavior would also occur in
everyday life outside the temples.
Therefore when Leviticus 18:3 says that the Israelites
are not to follow the Egyptian and Canaanite
practices, it is prohibiting (among other things) sex
between men under all circumstances – secular and
religious, not just homosexual temple prostitution.
This wide-ranging prohibition under all circumstances
is confirmed by the prohibition making no reference to
temple prostitution.
We therefore must reject the authors’ conclusion that,
when read in textual and historical context, the same-
sex prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly
directed at homosexual temple prostitution only.
Similar detailed critiques could be made of the book’
s treatment of the other anti-homosexuality verses and
the affirmative passages. However I will simply make
a few brief comments on these verses and passages:
Romans 1: Paul’s criticism of sex between females
and sex between males is not stated as being
restricted to sex associated with idol worship or
temple prostitution. He is therefore criticizing same-
sex intercourse under all circumstances and in all
places (not just in temples).
I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1: The authors’
contention that the use of “malakoi” is condemning a
type of moral weakness, i.e. “men who are vain,
fearful, and self-indulgent” cannot be true because
Paul calls the people he is criticizing “wicked” or
“wrongdoers”. And morally weak people are not
necessarily wicked or wrongdoers. Also the authors’
view that “arsenokoitai” is restricted to temple
prostitution, or a man who forces himself sexually on
another, is inconsistent with the word’s literal meaning
of “male-bedders” (men who take other men to bed
for sex), which implies sex between men in any
circumstance.
Ruth’s covenant with Naomi: It seems that there
was a very strong family type of love between Ruth
and her mother-in-law, Naomi – but nothing more.
Certainly nothing of a sexual nature.
What was the nature of Jonathan and David’s
relationship? The authors claim that David loved
Jonathan. This is untrue. The author of 1 and 2
Samuel is careful never to say that David loved
Jonathan. The love is always expressed as coming
from Jonathan.
When Jesus met a gay person: (The centurion and
his sick slave). The authors’ treatment of this episode
is very speculative. Their argument basically depends
on their view that being called an “honored slave”
means he is his master’s male lover. But this does
not necessarily follow. A slave could be called
“honored” for other reasons.
In conclusion, the authors have not succeeded in their
objective of showing that the anti-homosexuality
verses cover only situations (temple prostitution and
exploitative sex) which are inapplicable to modern,
loving, same-sex activity. Instead, it seems clear that
the verses plainly prohibit sex between men (and
criticize sex between women) in all circumstances.
This would include sex in loving same-sex
relationships.
A better approach would be to acknowledge the
biblical condemnation of same-sex activity and to say
that this condemnation does not apply to gays and
lesbians today, just as the biblical acceptance of
slavery does not apply today. This is partly because
our modern cultures are very different from the
cultures of Bible times. It is also partly because love
and sex between men, and between women, usually
causes no more harm than love and sex between a
man and a woman. This is the approach taken by this
website.
(November 2011)
New Bible Changes Message for Gays
(and Others)
The latest translation of the New International Version
of the Bible has an important change impacting on
gays and others.
The old version said that “male prostitutes” and
“homosexual offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of
God (1 Corinthians 6:9). This allowed many gay
Christians to claim the verse didn’t apply to them
because they were neither male prostitutes nor
homosexual offenders.
The latest version has changed this to say “men who
have sex with men” will not inherit the kingdom of
God. A positive for gay people is that the negative
words “homosexual offenders” are gone. And
lesbians, included in “homosexual offenders” in the
old version, are not covered by the new words.
On the other hand, gay men are squarely covered by
“men who have sex with men”. They can no longer
claim that the verse doesn’t apply to them, unless they
don’t have any sex with other men.
But that’s not all. The new words mean that the
condemnation in the verse now also applies to
straight men who have sex with men, even though they
don’t consider themselves as homosexual. A major
change indeed!!
(December 2011)
