Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations

Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting Real : Speak your peace

Homosexuality and Christianity

from Random - Monday, September 12, 2005
accessed 1760 times

The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, yet it does have several beautiful examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. (2 Samuel 1:26) Ruth's relationship with Naomi is an example of a deep, bonding love, and Ruth’s words of covenant to Naomi are often used in heterosexual wedding ceremonies. (Ruth 1:16-17) The Bible clearly values love between persons of the same sex.

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from sar
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 01:45

Wasn't Naomi Ruth's mother in law? Are you suggesting the Bible endorses incest as well as homosexuality?
(reply to this comment)
From is it incest?
Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 02:14


The whole 'in-law' part would suggest that it's not incest - however socially inappropriate it may be.(reply to this comment

From sar
Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 02:52

Oh well, in any case i suppose the Bible did endorse incest. My bad.(reply to this comment
Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 07:35

In the time proceeding jesus, the Romans had for hundreds of years taken woman to bare children, and considered it more natural to have affection and sexual love with a young boy, who they would take under their wing(so to speak), to teach, guide etc...
The Jews hated this aspect of the Romans culture and so it seems to me, this is why Paul takes a strong line with it as he feels this long held practise was infiltrating his newly adopted religion. (If Paul had have been a homosexual, it may have been a differant matter.:) )
(reply to this comment)
Thursday, September 15, 2005, 12:20

Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5(

From my studies in history and civilization, homosexuality has played a large role everyday relationships, mostly between men. Dating back to the ancient Minoans, people had homosexual relationships. It was a common practice.

In Greek culture it was the exception rather than the rule when a man was NOT homosexual. In many cases, homosexual coupling was treated as the acceptable relationship, as we might call it today, rather than the illicit affair. And as someone in this forum already described, a relationship with a woman was purely for procreation, nothing more.

There is little doubt that the Bible speaks "ill" of homosexuality. The Judaic and Christian cultures have both condemned and outlawed it. It is hard to believe that a religion that claims to be so accepting can dictate who one sleeps with.

The question I have is, if Christianity is built on "love", why then are so many Christians closed-minded and unwilling to accept the FACT that a homosexual relationship is true love?

I have little understanding of the workings of gay relationships, being straight, but is it not about two people who love each other? And if that love is strong enough, and good enough, why knock it?

It seems that people that are closed-minded to this seek out a religion that best suits their belief system. Their religion then becomes an excuse for bigotry and hatred. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Just a thought.(reply to this comment

From man on man
Wednesday, September 28, 2005, 00:09

Your right "I never realy hated one true God but the God of all the people I hated" Buy the way doz any one know who came up with that line .(reply to this comment
Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 15:31


A few things: first, much of what is taught in history and humanities courses is revisionist history, some of which is questionable. Much of the historical "evidence" for homosexuality is sketchy at best. Obviously, I am not at all saying that it was not practiced; rather, the extent to which it was practiced and accepted is unclear.

I think there are different types of homosexual relationships, so trying to make a broad statement such as "a homosexual relationship is true love" or, conversely, "all homosexual relationships are sexually deviant perversions" is difficult to make since people do things for different reasons. That said, I think you will find more sexual perversion and "deviance" in homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships (e.g. swingers, etc.). Indeed, one study found that about 1/3 of convicted pedophiles were homosexual (male on male). While pro-gay activists claim that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual (which is correct), gays only make up about 3 percent of the population, so they are extremely over represented among convicted pedophiles (i.e., only about 3 percent of pedophiles should be homosexual, not 33 percent).

I think one of the primary objections to homosexuality is based on the premise that it is not "natural" and is a sexual perversion like pedophilia, necromancy, or bestiality. Obviously it cannot be considered as deviant as these sexual perversions for a variety of reasons -- e.g., consenting sex, etc. -- but the association between homosexuality and deviant sexual behavior remains clear to many people. Many people engage in sexual behavior that is considered strange or unnatural. Homosexuality is considered by many to be such an act (like incest or sadomasochism).

The argument that homosexuality is genetic is weakened by the fact that many gays are bisexual (that and the dearth of scientific evidence for a "gay" gene). Thus, if they really had a genetic sexual attraction toward the same sex, then they would not be interested in the opposite sex (just as a heterosexual has no sexual desire toward someone of the same sex). Likewise, we do not really witness homosexual activity in other species. This suggests that it is more likely to be human choice rather than genetic. Another reason why it is unlikely to be natural is that sexual activity is designed for procreation. Homosexual sex cannot produce progeny, thus, it serves no natural biological purpose. Thus, in many people’s minds, homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic.

From Christians I have talked to about it, many believe that it is a spiritual affliction similar to how they see alcoholism or drug addiction as a spiritual phenomenon. Others see it as an addiction without necessarily attributing it to something spiritual. Needless to say, no one argues that homosexuals do not love each other. Love, in this argument, is irrelevant since the Christian perspective associates the act with sin. That is, contrary to what Berg taught, love alone does not negate sin (e.g., loving cocaine or pornography does not justify it from a Christian perspective). Since the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, Christians are against it, the same way they are against adultery, fornication, lust, greed, etc. All of these sins have been around since the beginning of civilization as well, the fact that homosexuality has occurred throughout history does not justify it from a religious perspective (indeed, it is not just Christians who are against homosexuality – Jews and Muslims among others are also opposed to it). Others, non-Christians, do not necessarily see it as a sin, but rather consider it disgusting and twisted – similar to someone who practices incest. All that to say, the reasons for condemning homosexuality are varied and may have little to do with historical perspective or love as you discuss above (both of which are irrelevant in terms of the arguments against homosexuality). (reply to this comment

From history
Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 02:27

One thing that seems pretty consistent in the accounts is that homosexuality often involved young boys. Therefore perhaps much of the outrage over it could have been similar to our contempt for sexual abuse of children. (reply to this comment
Wednesday, September 14, 2005, 09:05

From my understanding, this was more of a Greek practice and the Romans looked on this behavior more critcally (i.e., it was done in private)(reply to this comment
Wednesday, September 14, 2005, 10:11

Yes, your right, it started with the Greeks.(reply to this comment
from thinker711
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 13:06

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you might be reading into these scriptures too much. The world was a very different place back then and love may have had different connotations. Male Arabs today still hold hands and kiss one another, but that does not make them homosexual. I think part of the Family's misguided sexual doctrines were as result of attaching sexual meanings to non-sexual passages in the Bible. To me, it seems like you are trying to do the same thing here (just my opinion). That is, it seems you are trying to force a pro-homosexual argument into the Bible, much like Berg did with the “Law of Love” (as well as Zerby's Loving Jesus doctrine). If anything, the Bible (at least English translations, such as KJV) seems to condemn homosexuality rather than endorse it. I am not arguing for or against the compatibility of Christianity and homosexuality; rather, I just think you are taking the Bible out of context and an argument for their incompatibility could be made as well (and perhaps a more persuasive one at that).
(reply to this comment)
From Random
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 14:07

I aprecciate your comments, But I am just being honest and following what the bible says not making anything up or having my own agenda, And I challenge you to read the KJV and in No verse or scripture does it condem Homosexuality. Read my other article on Gay & Christian. In no way would I need to change the Bible out of context its plain & simple. also I am offended that you would compare me to zerby or berg we are all entitled to our thaughts but please do your reaserch also. thanks(reply to this comment
From ErikMagnusLehnsher
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 19:15


"But I am just being honest..."

I'll be honest, too. The truth is many of us know more KJV Bible scripture than we care to and probably figured out what our sexual orientation was a long, long time ago. Of course, anyone is welcome to bring up any subject but an extended debate on this topic would probably be about as successful at changing anyone's mind as a recruiting effort for a cozy get-away to Brokeback Mountain.(reply to this comment

From Jules
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 15:52

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Actually, the KJV says:

Lev. 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev. 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Rom. 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality.

It is interesting to me that a group like TF, which says that the laws of Moses are archaic and Paul was misguided, and that "all things are lawful" for them, is so homophobic. This is an interesting theological issue that a theologian like Chancellor might have picked up on. Leviticus 20 in particular also demands death for adulterers and those who commit incest.

To me it says that TF really doesn't have a solid theology apart from the personal preference of the leaders.

While I, like Lance, am proud to be an atheist, I recently came across an interesting letter from a pastor to a gay woman. I actually have a number of Christian friends whom I respect a great deal and to me, the ability to see a faith for what it is and also what it is not, is something that I do respect.

Here is the letter: to this comment

From Random
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 16:01


Thanks Jules for correcting me I guess I wanted to say that in the KJV jesus never mentions anything againts homosexuals.(reply to this comment

From Jules
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 17:13

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

I assume you are being facetious with your "thanks Jules for correcting me" but it is still enough to trigger me. Please don't do that.

One of the people that has helped me the most in my life is a Christian. She was an Anglican, who also attended the Metropolitian Community Church of Toronto on occasion. I have done a lot of quite outrageous things in my life and I never once felt judged by her.

The point I was trying to make (and I suppose I did quite badly) was that the black and white of a religious text doesn't make a whole lot of sense sometimes. The belief or code of ethics behind a particular religon--and with Christianity it is: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart ... thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself--is the most important part I think.

There is so much in the Bible that is quite disturbing. Genocide, mutilation, torture, rape, child abuse, murder, etc. To take it at face value is insanity.

Embracing any religion immediately gives you a code of ethics to follow. It gives you access to a group of people who also embrace those same ethics and who you can feel relatively safe with.

I used to be much more obnoxious about religion, but at this stage in my life I respect that people find a community that makes them feel safe and they adhere to a set of morals that helps them not feel lost and adrift.

I respect the right of each individual to choose their own path. (reply to this comment

From Random
Friday, September 23, 2005, 15:20


JUlES WOOO slow down,

I meant what I said. You assumed wrong I am not trying to be facetious,

and it makes me very happy to know that you were touched by a angel. I respect the right of each individual to choose their own path also.

(reply to this comment

From thinker711
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 15:06

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
I did not intend to offend you, and I apologize if I did. From my reading of both of your articles (especially this one), it appears that you are equating love with sexuality. David’s love for Jonathan does not necessarily have anything to do with sexuality; yet, you are interpreting it as such (or at least suggesting it does). This is essentially the same thing Berg did. He claimed that sex was the ultimate manifestation of love, which is not true (indeed, the two are often completely unrelated). Thus, I object to you equating love with sexuality. Like you said, there are no references to “homosexuality” in the KJV, although there are references to things that have been interpreted as homosexuality (since that word was not around in during the writing of the KJV). Indeed, some modern translations of the Bible do use the word homosexual (Paul condemns it in 1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” - New International Version. The KJV reads: “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”). Thus, I think that this issue could be debated (although I don’t personally care to debate it right now).

I am not arguing for or against the compatibility of Christianity and homosexuality. My only qualm is with your argument that the Bible in some way endorses homosexuality (this is my impression of your articles, so please correct me if I misread you). Arguing that the Bible does not condemn it is certainly debatable. However, to suggest that Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan had homosexual relationships simply based on the verses you reference is, in my opinion, reading way too much into scripture and taking it out of context. I do not disagree that “the Bible values love between persons of the same sex.” Indeed, this is essentially Jesus’ primary message (“love your neighbor”, “love your enemy”, etc.). However, love is not sex. Berg treated the two as one and the same, which is why we were taught to f**k our neighbors, enemies, potential donors, family, etc. I think the only way you could claim that the Bible endorses homosexuality is by making a similar leap in interpreting scripture. If you are simply arguing that the Bible does not address homosexuality at all, then I would be more willing to accept your position (even though many religious experts would not). But from my reading of your articles, you are taking it one step beyond that. (reply to this comment
From Random
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 15:50


Well said,

although id like to say that my whole comment is to explain how hipocritical & wrong it is to judge homosexuals & use the bible to exuse a homophobia, in no way am I taking it a step beyond its plain & simple. Why are people scared to think that maybe men or a woman of God were homosexuals or with gay tendancys. Its the meer thought that you think its wrong to imply that it could be posible. But that was not my intention to take the scripture out of context.

Anyway love your comments!!! (reply to this comment

From Samuel
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 21:06


I am not scared to think that men and women of God were homosexuals or with gay tendencies, as I believe your theory to be wrong. I am however, scared to misquote scripture, and completely ignore parts of the Bible that deal directly with the homosexuality issue. Yes, these were in the book of Levicticus, what we know as the Torah. Yes, Jesus freed us from the letter of the law. However, to break the laws regarding sex in the Torah would be called "fornication". Fornication is "unlawful sexual intercourse"

Jesus, the same one who fulfilled the law and the prophets, had this to say about fornication in the New Testament.

"That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders...all these things defile the man.". (Mark 7:20-21, 23)

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul had plenty to say about fornication in Romans 1:26-31. From my glancing at the list of other sins mentions in this passage, it would appear that fornicators are not in good company.

God speaks through Paul again in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. In 2 Corinthians 12:21 Paul says that if he returns to Corinth and finds that the flock there has not repented of the fornication (the acts themselves), and lasciviousness (strong desires) that they have committed, it will be as if " God humble(d) me among you".

I believe the Bible is quite clear on the issue of homsexuality.

(reply to this comment

Sunday, May 11, 2008, 22:13


Your right.....Paul went to the town of Corinthia and spoke to the leaders of the church and spoke to them about their LACK of loving and keeping to their OWN families. After many years of biblical study and being a lesbian I have found that mercy is new every morning as is my Abba. I do not call Him my father for He knows why. I call Him Abba. The ONE thing that Jesus spoke of more than any other is love. Love like He did. Love beyond understanding.

Luke 6:35

35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Now about a sinful woman....
Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman

36 Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37 When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38 and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

40 Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.

41 "Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43 Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

44 Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

48 Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

49 The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

The OTHER thing He spoke about is faith...HIS faith NOT the faith of a sick mind.....

Romans 8:34-39

It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."[l] 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[m] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

You do not know me from a wing on a dragonfly.....what I do NOT know is your cult survival. What I DO know is you being used and abused under Jesus name. What I have now is MERCY. Alot of grace and Alot of hope. Your torment is great. Mountains have and must be moved for you ALL. I do not see that happening soon enough. What I DO see is your amazing ability to scream when you want to now. Break glass against that stone wall when you want to now. Hate out loud. Love out loud. BE OUT LOUD. I am only learning to play out loud for the first time in my life. I ask now for you to have a little faith out loud.

Here is what my ABBA says to me.....

2 Timothy 1:7 For God did not give us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power, of love and of a sound mind.

Here is what my ABBA says to those who hurt His children....
The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Me...I stand in faith before God and my Abba Jesus....I will not have a millstone around my neck and I will not judge. What I will do is live without giving any more of MY power to my abusers. Faith.

(reply to this comment

From Samuel
Monday, May 12, 2008, 16:38


I have moved on and learned since that comment, which was written in haste (it was written in 2005). I thank you for responding to me comment. I certainly do not see things the way I once did.

And if my arrogant and judgemental comment didn't trigger anyone, I seriously doubt that yours will! :-)(reply to this comment

From thinker711
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 16:34

This really has nothing to do with my personal opinions about the compatibility between homosexuality and Christianity, much less about my opinions about homosexuality in general. My only point is that it is a stretch to claim that the Bible endorses homosexuality. I have not discounted the possibility that characters in the Bible were gay, it’s just that there is no reasonable evidence that suggests they were (unless you take verses out of context). This is similar to the claim that Jesus was black. It could be the case, and I am not adamantly saying that he was not; however, there is no good evidence for it (all of the evidence requires one to make certain assumptions and read too much into certain factors). Indeed, there are countless things that “could” be the case (e.g., aliens built the pyramids), but that lack adequate evidence. In your article, you contend that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality (which, again, is debatable) and you suggest that certain individuals may have been gay based on a particular interpretation of select verses. You may be right; however, in my opinion, there is far too little evidence to even entertain the idea much less advance it. This has nothing to do with my sense of morality or a reverence for Biblical characters. It really all comes down to evidence, and in my opinion, there just isn’t any. I hold the same view when it comes to trying to “prove” or “disprove” the existence of God. It can’t be done, which is why it all comes down to faith. (reply to this comment
From 1_kat
Sunday, May 11, 2008, 22:39


You are right. The good, bad or ugly side of faith. Yes faith can and sometimes be all of those things. LOL Aint God strange? Have you seen a worm lately? They is UGLY and creepy to be sure! (Bring that up 'cause opening fishing happened here in Minnesota this weekend!) OH now that I think of it FISH are UGLY too! NOT YOU Fish Swimming in the water FISH with GILLS. Now I just being a brat that I am.

kat(reply to this comment

from vixen
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 09:52

Not to mention John, the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' or who loved Jesus or whatever it was - It's been a long time since I've dipped into those pages. Seems to me that there could very well have been more than traditionally meets the eye to that relationship...
(reply to this comment)

My Stuff

log in here
to post or update your articles


67 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores

I think, therefore I left

Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas

Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact:] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]