7.4.14

The Narrow Gate

[work in progress]

If you were able to go inside the mind of a Christian and see what's really at its core, you'll find percentages like this of what they think being a Christian is all about:
50% Loving God, 30% doing what the Bible tells you to do, 15% Loving your neighbor, and the other 5% Prayer, seeking God, a meditation on God and His Word, and whatever else.
As I said the percentages might be off by 1 or 2 between "loving your neighbor" and "doing what the Bible tells you to do," but pretty much in those percentages. We get the biggest percentage with loving God because He does say to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind after all.

I beg to differ with those percentages because the Bible does. If you were to put the Bible in the most accurate percentages from summing up all the Bible messages from front to back cover (let's take out the equation of God loving us because when it comes right down to it, the whole of the Bible is a living love letter from God to us, the creatures He created), you'll have 99% of loving your neighbor and 1% of everything else and I'll tell you why.

Let's first go to the Hebrew (OT) verses. The Bible says only Jesus can forgive you of your sins; sins that once were, are now gone, blotted out like they were never there. But the Bible gives us another example of what can happen to our sins in Isa 1:8: "Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
If you look at the context of that verse you see why God will do this with your sins in the previous verse 17: "Learn to do good (for others); Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow."

Love for others is the key to this verse. It's even in Proverbs 10:12: "...love covers all sins."

Now this is not FORGIVENESS of sins with these verses, it's a covering, a translation of a verb word from the Greek that means continuous hiding, a veiling of sins that are still there, they just can't be seen. The love talked about comes from the command of; 'Loving your neighbor as yourself'." This love is so strong, so powerful, this love will hide your sins from the very eyes of God, a love so powerful, Paul says it is greater than having a faith that moves mountains and better than all wisdom and knowledge (1 Cor 13:2).


Christ says ALL the Laws that were given to man by His Father, ALL of what the Prophets spoke, hang on loving God and what Matthew 22:39,40 says is the same as; "Loving your neighbor as yourself."

Is the author of this post writing, "Loving your neighbor is the same as loving God," when that Scripture says loving God is the greatest? Yes.

The ancient Jews have a popular word trick (Gezera Shava) in that if two separate announcements had the same word or phrase, they were equal. It was this word trick that Jesus used against the Pharisees who tried to trap Him in Matt 22:34-39:

"But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Now if Jesus would have answered them by saying loving God was the greatest commandment, it would have taken away from what the Pharisees understood was the whole message of Jesus, loving your neighbor as yourself, but if Jesus said loving your neighbor as yourself was the greatest commandment, the Pharisees would have stoned Him for blasphemy for not placing God first. What does Jesus do? He uses the Jewish word 'trick' (Gezera Shava) to show both are equal:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Jesus putting both commandments as being the same is what get's Him out of their snare. He does it again in the parable of the Good Samaritan with the follow-up explanation; "Who IS my neighbor?"

What about the Laws we as Christians are to keep and follow? Jesus says:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matt 5:17)

But what is "The Law?" Laws from the Old Testament? No. Paul even goes as far as saying those who follow the old law are under a "curse" (Gal. 3:10). The answer is found in Matt 19:16-19 with what Jesus tells the rich man and it's found again with Paul in Romans 13:8,9. The 'Law' we are to keep is to be found in the commandment in Leviticus 19:18; "...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

To many, it looks like Christ is reading laws off the top of His head to give you a general idea that old laws are to still be followed with what he says to the rich man, but every single prohibition He states is said for a reason and those prohibitions He did not include were left out on purpose.

To the rich man:

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied; "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,* you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Paul repeats it:

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments; “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”


Each prohibition listed by Christ and each prohibition listed by Paul is breaking the general rule of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" From Leviticus 19:18. NOW we have the answer with the seeming contradiction Paul is saying in Romans 2:13: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"
what Paul is saying in the following chapter has perplexed the church for ages with what looks like Paul contradicting himself in Romans 3:20: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law..."

AND Jesus seemingly says we are to keep the Old Testament Laws in Matt 5:17 saying:

"...Think not that I am come to destroy the law..."


Paul and Christ, two learned Jews of the Torah, treated the Torah the way the ancient Jewish nation did, they divided the laws that were between man and man (mitzvoth bein adam lachaveiro) that involved loving and doing kindness to your neighbor that we are to keep as a general law from Leviticus 19:18, and laws that were everything else (mitzvoth bein adam lamakom) that involved Laws between God and man that Christ said is fulfilled with loving and doing kindness to your neighbor. So the answer to what looks like Paul contradicting himself with Romans 2:13 with Romans 3:20 is Paul saying the 'works of the laws' (Old Testament laws and rules) will not make you right with God, it is only the 'works of the law' (Leviticus 19:18 in our actions with loving our neighbor) that will make you right with God.** 
If you stay within that commandment of Leviticus 19:18 in all you do, Christ says you fulfill ALL the Laws and Prophets in the Old Testament (Matt 7:12):
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Now we know what SPECIFIC law Jesus said He will not destroy in Matt 5:17, the law found in Leviticus 19:18. Christ fulfilled the rest of the Old Testament rules and regulations in the complete work of His sacrifice on the cross.


In Luke one man understood this with Jesus confirming his interpretation when Jesus asked the man; "What is YOUR interpretation of the "Law?" The man answered; "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said; "You have answered correctly. Do this and you will live.” To say the 'Law' are the prohibitions in the Hebrew (Old Testament) Bible, is calling Christ a liar.


John 13:35 says loving your neighbor shows the world you belong to Christ:

"By this all men will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”


Christ gives an example of what loving your neighbor is with the action of showing servitude in John 13:8, 12-15:

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them.  “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

Loving your neighbor shows a physical outward proof you have passed from death into Salvation according to 1 John 3:14:

"We know that we have passed from death to life because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."


James 2:8 says if you do this, you're doing good with everything else:

"If, however, you are fulfilling the Royal Law (a ROYAL LAW was a law decreed by the King Himself (Christ) that trumped ALL previous laws in the Kingdom) according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.


If you truly love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, you will 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Jesus said if you truly love me, you will 'love others as I have loved you.' It will be the ONLY thing we will be held accountable for when we stand before the very Throne of God when all works and faith have passed away and it will be the ONLY thing that will that will decide whether we go to Heaven or be cast in Hell (Matt 25:31-46):
 
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”



And always remember, the mercy you show others will always trump the judgment of God you show and say to others:

"Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:12,13)

...




note: V'ahavtah L'rey-acha Kamocha (Love your neighbor as yourself) is steeped in Jewish tradition as is Gemilut Chassadim (bestowing loving kindness) which is supposed to be given with "no fixed measure." 

*Adultery is a sin that breaks the command of "loving your neighbor" in that it's an offense against another (wife, husband, mate, an extension of your fellow human being) as themselves. The Jews saw sleeping with another man's wife as an extension of violating the husband. Now since one man loving one man does not constitute breaking "Loving your neighbor as yourself," homosexuality wouldn't fall in breaking that command with two people edifying each other in a relationship of mutual love and respect without a 3rd party being hurt.

**I owe a great debt to author Michael Wood who explains in more detail how the ancient Jews divided their laws with the terms mitzvoth bein Adam lachaveiro and mitzvoth bein Adam lamakom in his book "Paul and Homosexuality" and not this Christian invention of how we divide Jewish laws (ritual/purity/moral) now.

4.4.14

Albert Mohler

Mohler, like Michael Brown, is a conspiracy nut who believes all gays are a cabal secretly following the book; "After the Ball..." (I write about the book on Brown's post). Like before, I'll post what an anti-gay proponent of the Bible has to say and my response below. This one was cut short because listening to Mohler was downright painful and I had to keep picking my jaw up off the floor with what was coming out of his mouth.

*The posters of this video keep on taking it down and re-posting it to keep me off of it (the rascals). It's like a little game with them because I always leave a link back to here in their comment section of the video and apparently they don't want others to read what I have to say refuting him because this vid is usually gone one or two days later after I link. What I write isn't even that much. Maybe they think I'll go further with refuting him here and it will make Mohler look even more in error.
 


Mohler gives 10% of the Word and 90% of his opinion. What shows God's Glory between man and God is a man dying to self, the old sinful man that Paul says we are always struggling with inside us. The old nature becomes less, so God can be more. What shows God's Glory on Earth is loving our neighbor as ourselves, the sum of all the Laws and the Prophets, what will tell the world we are the people of God (John 13:35). This hackneyed theology of Mohler saying opposite sexes coming together is showing God's Glory with it being a "right order" is basic stoicism. Even unbelievers and the haters of God who do all forms of wickedness are in opposite-sex relationships, are they displaying the Glory of God? Two dogs mating doesn't show God's Glory, it just is.

Mohler is showing his ignorance of Bible translation with his use of the word "dominion" over animals from Genesis. The correct translation from the Hebrew word gives the definition of loving "stewardship." You find the word again in Psalms 72:8 with its meaning given in verses 12-14; "For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight." This isn't a control from the incorrect translation to the Greek we get the iron-fisted word "dominion" from. By the way, this is another example of a whole Bible belief being wrong because of a mistranslation and the error of it, carried over by the writings of the early church fathers who saw animals as soulless and without emotions, literally no better than automatons, that became Church doctrine allowing the mass exploitation and abuse of the animal kingdom up to the present day. 

Do we need completion with a mate? Maybe Mohler missed the part where everyone from John the Baptist to Christ to Paul were celibate with Paul encouraging it over marriage. What only completes us is being in Christ (Colossians 2:10). James 1:3,3 says; "...testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
This heretical "theology" of completeness with an opposite-sex mate, two halves becoming whole, is rooted in Greek paganism that also made the case for a 3rd gender.

Mohler says everything we know about life comes from marriage between one man and one woman, a non-negotiable covenant. What?! Did Abraham have a non-negotiable marriage covenant with Sarah over Hagar? Did Solomon have one with his seven hundred wives? What about King David and his numerous concubines who weren't wives?

I stopped listening at the 13-minute mark because this is ridiculous. He's starting off already riddled with errors. I later tried again at the 18 minute mark and couldn't.

2.4.14



"(Gay) men and women are not projects. If you don't really love them, shut the Hell up. If you have no genuine love, if you have no genuine affection, then I don't understand what you're doing. It's like you're working a project or something, like you want the big gay victory of; "A gay man converted!" If you really don't love someone or have genuine care for their soul, their mind and their being, be quit man! You're making a mess of stuff."

-Pastor Matt Chandler, who believes homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible, on Christians who quote the "clobber passages" to gays.




1.4.14

Michael Brown

Brown just came out with another book and in one chapter he brings up the gay urban legend about the book "After The Ball" as stated fact. For those who don't know, "After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" was a book released in 1989 by two gay authors that gave an outline with how gays will be accepted in mainstream America. The main thrust of the book was to make homosexuality seem like a no big deal to the public and that's what will make homosexuals accepted. With people knowing more and more gays, including friends and family and the 'scariness otherness' of homosexuality going away with gays being shown in the media with being normal and living normal lives, it was just common sense that's how gays will be accepted over time. It's a proven fact that if you know a gay person, you're less likely to not hate gays if you give them a face you know personally.

Anti-gay Christians like Brown see the acceptance of homosexuals in society as something else. They believe that all gays are following the book as a kind of manifesto. That gays are following some secret and diabolical plan outlined in "After The Ball." All gays know about it, we just don't talk about it in public. Most people would put this in the realm of conspiracy nuts, but it's amazing how many prominent Christian leaders like Brown and mega preacher Albert Mohler believe it's true.

I've never heard of the book until the name of it started to pop up in rabid anti-gay religious sites. No one I know has ever heard of the book, it went out of print years ago and I guarantee you 99% of gays have never heard of the book much less read it. 'After The Ball' is to gays what "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is to Jews.

This is an interview with Brown and Wayne Bessen. Wayne played a key role in exposing the "ex-gay" movement for what it was. My response is below.
 



Brown really is a bold faced liar. As for this 'gay activist' Brown said he was going to go out to lunch/dinner with because he thinks Brown is such a great guy, let's hear what the activist actually said: holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/07/charlotte-pride-and-hypocrisy-of.html#.Uw6aFY3Tl1t
Go to the comments section.

First, Christians should be leery of Brown because of his association with the heresy called the "Brownsville Revival" that he still defends today (news flash The Holy Spirit doesn't make you bark like a dog) and is considered a false teacher in most Christian circles for pushing the 'Prosperity Doctrine.'

Brown lied about the purpose of his group at Charlotte Pride with one witness saying; "I saw a lot of people trying to get away from the red-shirted people, and they just wouldn’t leave people alone. They were going after the children of gay and lesbian parents. They were after the little kids, telling them that their mommies and daddies were going to hell and were sinners.”

He bares false witness with saying comments like; "Gays want to sexualize children" And they; "Want to put Christians in jail" (easy Google look-up) he'll no doubt will say was taken out of context with a smug smile. The man has a ministry (they also went to the pride parade together that brown said was like; "Going to the gates of Hell") with Lou Engle, also considered a false Christian by most Christians for spreading the 'Manifest Sons of God' Heresy, who went to Uganda to help pass the "Anti-Gay" Law that would put gays in prison for the rest of their lives:

Second, and what concerns me as a Christian is his keeping old Jewish Laws with new Christianity mix and match apostate theology, even saying Christians should keep the Sabbath.

This is what he said on the Piers Morgan show:


"First, Jesus said that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In other words, the Old Testament law, even in Jesus’ day, was still in force and Jesus accepted it. That is the same law that condemns homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus.
Next, Brown cited Matthew 15 in which Jesus states that all sexual acts committed outside of marriage defile a human being.

Finally, Brown cited Matthew 19 in which Jesus said that marriage, as God intended it, is the union of one man and one woman."


My response:
Any man who claims Jesus said we are to run back to the Old Testament is insulting the complete work of the cross and teaches a different Gospel than the one preached by Christ and Paul (Rom 7:6, Gal 2:21). The Bible is crystal clear that ALL the Law and the Prophets hang on the sole edict of "Loving your (gay) neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22-36, 40). Period. Paul even goes as far as saying those who insist on following aspects of the Old Covenant, a covenant that was hung on the cross to die with Christ and to die to us to be replaced by a NEW Covenant of Grace, are under a "curse" (Galatians 3:10).

Brown also seems to miss the rest of the Matthew verses where Jesus talks about born 'eunuchs' (verse 12) who straight marriage doesn't apply to and how the marriage vow is only for those who accept it for themselves (verse 11), it wasn't a command. Look at the Bible more closely and you'll see Jesus said little about marriage (He only commented on it because it was brought up to Him) and Paul had even less a regard for it (1 Cor 7:8,9).
Any person who doesn't understand these basics tenets about Christianity shouldn't call themselves "Christian."

31.3.14

Ravi Zacharias

On this blog I have lack of challenges with what I present on homosexuality and the Bible. If I present an argument, I expect for you to give me an answer to that argument point by point and not just telling me "You're wrong." I've been posting a lot on YouTube lately and I'd like to address some of the anti-gay points brought up by some of the most influential Christians out there. I'm not afraid to answer tough questions or give counter points even to these "Super Christians" because it's the Word of God that guides me, but I take my queue from God saying he will use the stupid and not the wise. The Bible says I am on equal footing with these Christians because no part of the Body of Christ is above the other (1 Cor. 12:22-25). So yes, they are not in a place that I don't have that same authority and that includes going right up and sitting at their lofty table. If you think I have a lot of gall to do this with the names in ministry you hold in such high esteem, too bad, bring it up to Paul who said I could. 

Ravi Zacharias is considered on of the greatest Christian apologist of our time. I give my answer
below the video I either posted in YouTube comments or for the first time here.



Sorry Ravi, but if you believe the majority who call Christ Savior are only concerned about homosexuality because they see "sexuality as sacred," you gloss over most Christians who are on multiple divorces, on the Christian app version of Tinder, or Christians who have no problem with extramarital sex. If Ravi also thinks "race as sacred" was always a held belief, maybe he missed the episode of American history when God-fearing men had slaves with citing Paul in his Epistle to Philemon as justification. Same with justifying Christian white supremacy like renown 1800's theologian R.L. Dabney did in his watershed book "A Defense of Virginia and the South" that set the tone for the Church on how to treat black men and women for decades that is abhorrent to the Gospel of Christ.
.

A few other points...

Ravi's premise is faulty from the start when he states homosexuality is an aberration, according to whom? The animal kingdom where homosexuality is commonplace? The historical record of mankind were homosexuality was well-attested to in a neutral light? Bigoted dispositions of Bible translators and church tradition? Those mentions of "homosexuality" in the Biblical texts find nothing that speaks in the negative on the homosexual condition or practice IF kept in their context. If the Bible speaks nothing on homosexuality in and of itself, neither should we. If Christ speaks nothing in the negative on the condition of homosexuality, neither should we.

Ravi said God complimented Adam with woman (the actual Scripture says "mate") and put only in her what can cope with a man? In reality you cannot find two more foreign beings who are always attempting to understand each other than man and woman. Take away the sexual desire each has for each other and I doubt one would prefer to be with the opposite sex instead of the same sex for company sitting across from each other at a restaurant table. If there is anything called "complimentary" with one human with another it's with the same sex with common understandings, common dispositions, common interests and a slew of other commonalities on many levels. There's a reason the secular world came up with; "Men Are from Mars And Women Are from Venus." A transexual can have all the inner and outer characteristics of a female with the exception of having a penis, so by your definition, they can also compliment a man.

He says gays can be gays in disposition, they just shouldn't act on it and he brings up some writer who he thinks we should all have heard of. This man is asking gays to put on a yoke he would ask of no one else who desires the companionship of another human being, giving gays a burden that God never asked for or required. Since he brings up his author friend, let me bring up one of my own in contrast. William Stringfellow was a brilliant lawyer and Harvard graduate who gave up his career to defend poor blacks in the courts by the call of God in the 60's and lived in the slums of Harlem with the people he defended. Stringfellow's writings on the Apostle Paul's statement of "Principalities and Powers" is considered the best on the subject in most theological circles. Stringfellow was a gay man who lived with his lover during this time. He was no less of a Christian in action and no less a man of God than Ravi's celibate friend, yet Ravi will only see one as acceptable to God.

What I do find interesting is that he believes you can be gay and a Christian, just not practicing. I don't think he realizes how that wouldn't fly with most of his brethren who believe just even having the desire keeps you from salvation. He seems to not know that many churches affirm practicing gays (United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Methodists, etc), so he doesn't have to worry about gays being in churches he calls home... for the time being. 




Update: 11/23/20
I only now found out Ravi passed from cancer complications several months. I had no doubt Ravi touched many and he will always be regarded as a titan of the faith. That is why it grieved me with what he said on homosexuality that informed the opinions of countless. While he was talking about the "sacredness of sex," he was doing this

What he said in the above video will go through the fire when he stands before The Bema Seat of Christ and it will be burnt wood.

I have nothing more to say.

28.3.14

Jewish Exegesis Methodology and Leviticus

On the basis of the exegesis of Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael in the Sifra, on Leviticus, written in the mid-second century of the Common Era, Rabbi Ishmael says:

"The Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules.... When a generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies (Miklal u'frat)."

In our texts of Leviticus the generalization is the text; "A man shall not lay with a man," ואת זכר לא תשכב and the specification is the text; "as you would lay with a woman" משכבי אשה.

Based upon Rabbi Ishmael's method of Jewish Torah exegesis, we can clearly see that the biblical passages in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13 can not refer to true homosexual activity at all, as at least one of the males is a heterosexual or perhaps a bisexual male. Otherwise the text need not supply the words, "as (you would) lay with a woman."

To translate that prohibition, therefore, as applying to any homosexual relationship is to exit the realm of divine ordination and enter instead the realm of subjective, mortal homophobia.

The ancient rabbis must have had some sense of this problem when they ruled two thousand years ago that any homosexual sexual activity short of anal intercourse is not included in the biblical prohibition (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 54a-56a; Sotah 26b; Niddah 13a; Maimonides, Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a).

Why did they bother to offer that qualification if it was so clear to them that homosexuality was forbidden?

Also, lesbianism, according to Jewish law, was never prohibited; Maimonides, who personally abhorred such behavior, ruled that; it is neither a biblical nor a rabbinic prohibition. (Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a.)

In fact, the rabbis in the Gemara (BT, Tractate Yevamot) specifically say that the passages in Leviticus refers to an androgynous being and not to male-male sex.

Since the rabbis' interpretations are the basis of halakhah, anyone claiming that Judaism is against homosexual orientation based upon that passage is simply incorrect.

From http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html

24.3.14

Joy Electric

Gay Christian Network

Many years ago I was a frequent poster over at the Gay Christian Network (now called something else) when they first started (my tag was "Common Swift" like the bird), one of the largest gay Christian resources and gathering places of gay Christians on the net then.

It was founded by a man named Justin Lee who came from a fundamentalist/Evangelical background like myself. I once almost made it to the GCN Los Angeles gathering (each city has its own) to actually meet these people (the husband and I did eventually meet one at a Mexican restaurant he might have regretted). GCN was set up to be a meeting place for gay Christians who didn't all believe in the same Bible beliefs but had that commonality with being gay and Christian. Supposedly.

If you know even a little of the history of the Body of Christ, you know they don't always get along, I mean, look at the conflict between the two powerhouses of Paul and Peter? Here's Paul telling Peter he's doing it wrong and Peter resenting this once Pharisee who hunted Christians telling him what to do when Jesus told HIM he was the rock the Lord's church was going to be built on (I'd like to think when Paul traveled to finally have a showdown with Peter in person, it wasn't to hit him over the head with a big rock). Then there was the war between the Orthodox and Gnostic Christians, Paul attacking Christians who were teaching heresies, not to mention all the in-fighting within the churches Paul was always writing letters telling them to stop. My point with all this is that even though we are all Christians, we are very much still human and there will always be conflict between us even on the day the Lord takes us into the sky.

Sometimes conflict is necessary because some Christian beliefs need to be banged out to see if they pass the Word of God test, it just has to be done and the victor of those conflicts is an example of why we don't have Cataphrygian Christianity today instead of the one we know and love now. Paul also didn't mince words with telling heretics off, like I said, no one likes conflict, but it needs to be done to keep the integrity of the Word of God from going off the rails.

My leaving GCN started with attacks on a friend named Rick Brentlinger who was also writing at GCN, a guy who towed the conservative Bible line of the Bible being the inspired Word of God, a belief that makes up my own belief system. Without going into the specifics, GCN was falling into nasty debates with what was a split between the more Orthodox Christians like myself and those who weren't (they had a "debate forum" on the site at one time. The weird part is that I was fronting the Orthodox side (Rick bowed out because he's a lover and not a fighter) and the other side had an ex-seminary student as their anti-me. You either took sides or you ran for cover. Because I was pointing out the truths of the Bible as literal truths, I came off as the bad "Bible-Thumper" (not a good taste in the mouth of many over there with the experiences they've had being gay and those in the Church) who's spoiling everyone else's form of goofy types of Christianity and practices the Bible said weren't correct or kosher (much of it had to do with the practices of Christian "mysticism" the Bible condemns in no uncertain terms). I had some great Titans on my side during that messy conflict and one Pentecostal lesbian was a real scrapper (keep fighting the good fight Heather!) who always had my back, but I knew this conflict was doing this fledgling body of gay believers no good and I dusted the dirt off my feet and left. Justin deleted my final goodbye post like a roommate throwing my stuff on the sidewalk and changing the locks.

I bring all this up now because I just watched a video of a debate between Justin Lee and James White with my responses in the comments section. As long as people like Justin try to justify homosexuality apart from the yes or no of it in the Bible, people like White will always get the upper hand if you hold the Bible as the very Word of God. Even though White fell on Justin like a cartoon anvil, this comment gives a perspective benefitting Justin:

"Justin Lee came into this meeting at a severe disadvantage. He was confronting James White, a more experienced speaker who seemed insistent on debate. Lee admitted he did not want to go into head to head cross discussion for fear of alienating many in his own organization who believed that Christians were called to live lives of celibacy. Another reason NOT mentioned in the video is that the audience was almost entirely unanimous in its belief that same gender relations were sinful. A head to head argument would very likely have only created animosity with such a partisan assembly if they were to hear Lee continually say their personal beliefs were mistaken. White tried to compare this with his visiting a Mosque in England with a mixed Christian and Muslim congregation in which he stated that Christ was the way. But while the situation he described was (somewhat) similar it was hardly the same as what Justin Lee was facing since there was scarcely anything "mixed" about the people he was addressing. These factors combined with a natural shyness he admitted to on a GCN podcast a few months following this event are why Justin Lee should be credited just for having shown up. What's more, it appeared that instead of trying to "win" the audience over, Lee was trying to get them to simply know him better, perhaps in the hope they would like him and (MAYBE) want to know why he feels and believes the way he does by going on line to GCN. In this, he just may be able to claim some measure of success."


Years later I see Justin in another debate (he pops up from time to time and I think he wrote a book you should all buy) and sure enough he's back with his "I don't want to argue" stance and of course, they wipe the floor with him yet again. 


Some things never change.








Inside a GCN conference.

21.3.14

Torah Up Inside

A recurring claim says Jesus would not have seen homosexuality as permissible during the time he lived because homosexuality was so prohibited by Judaism, homosexuality was almost never practiced or talked about. Two books bring to light homosexuality was prevalent in the Jewish tradition.

"Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" By Steven Greenberg.

"Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" By Theodore W. Jennings Jr.

                                       

copyright

copyright