This video is a month old, but i felt interested to bring up this. Alan Chambers shows himself to be inconsistent, and contradicting. His views are fallible and spreading false messages like this will have consquenses for many who fall into ex-gay web of lies! He says his homosexuality has deminished, but recently on montel show, it was said it took him 9 months to consumate his marriage, but it's deminished right?
Alan is just a reclosted gay man spreading a message that he has convinced himself of, and now is trying to show to people who are not aware of the full story.
The concept of change has too many flaws, alan, and his organization are exploiting it to prove the impossible!
All i can say is Alan is only fooling himself, and others. He's blinded, and so many others that this is not a sound concept that has no proof whatsoever. Christ said "can the blind lead the blind"? Well it looks that way but will lead to a ditch!
Since they do not know truth, but have twisted it, they are in bondage!
All you can do is be yourself!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Ex-gay Alan Chambers full of contradictions and flaws
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Black Churches becoming more inclusive!!!
It seems that Christ's teachings, and wisdom is starting to cause my african american brothers and sisters to rethink their unjustified ways.
Black pastors are rethinking on how they interpret a contradicting book that has been
used against them, and so many others!
This is a good thing for black gays and lesibans to show they are there and love God
just as much as you!
It seems more Christians are following Christ's teachings the right way!
Black pastors are rethinking on how they interpret a contradicting book that has been
used against them, and so many others!
This is a good thing for black gays and lesibans to show they are there and love God
just as much as you!
It seems more Christians are following Christ's teachings the right way!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Love, Knowledge, and Truth always wins out!!!
America has become much more aware of it's gay citizens, and know we have always
been here, and will be here in the future!
The acceptance of gay americans is progressing quite well here in america, which
is a good thing for gay americans and america itself.
A certain individual has critize those who follow Christ's simplistic teachings.
The follows who represent what it means to be a true Christian they are:Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Peter Gomes, Rev. Michael Eric Dyson,and Rev. Al Sharpton.
This blogger calls it a sickening doctrine. I guess it's not sickening when it's
advocating hatred, prejudice, and justifing someone's negative thinking.
These men are true Christians, and doing what Christ would support! Some people in
these religions look for stamp of approval of their hateful ways, and they claim
to be a so called Christian. He claims these brave men are not living according
to the doctrine of Jesus Christ? What doctrine is he reading? Christ's teaching and
wisdom in the Gospels is follow by these men, and they are accountable for what they do.
Here what Homosexuality is:
Homosexuality is not a SIN!
Homosexuality is Natural!
people are born neither hetersexual or homosexual.
You won't discover your sexual orientation until at a later age!
Christ said those who come in love is how people will know you are my disciples.
Coming with hatred, and a contradicting book is not a disciple of Christ!
Some right wingers say that gays are winning the culture war, well bigotry never wins, it's just stubbling blocks for the oppress! Christ's sermons, beatitudes, and
sayings are full love, knowledge, and truth!
been here, and will be here in the future!
The acceptance of gay americans is progressing quite well here in america, which
is a good thing for gay americans and america itself.
A certain individual has critize those who follow Christ's simplistic teachings.
The follows who represent what it means to be a true Christian they are:Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Peter Gomes, Rev. Michael Eric Dyson,and Rev. Al Sharpton.
This blogger calls it a sickening doctrine. I guess it's not sickening when it's
advocating hatred, prejudice, and justifing someone's negative thinking.
These men are true Christians, and doing what Christ would support! Some people in
these religions look for stamp of approval of their hateful ways, and they claim
to be a so called Christian. He claims these brave men are not living according
to the doctrine of Jesus Christ? What doctrine is he reading? Christ's teaching and
wisdom in the Gospels is follow by these men, and they are accountable for what they do.
Here what Homosexuality is:
Homosexuality is not a SIN!
Homosexuality is Natural!
people are born neither hetersexual or homosexual.
You won't discover your sexual orientation until at a later age!
Christ said those who come in love is how people will know you are my disciples.
Coming with hatred, and a contradicting book is not a disciple of Christ!
Some right wingers say that gays are winning the culture war, well bigotry never wins, it's just stubbling blocks for the oppress! Christ's sermons, beatitudes, and
sayings are full love, knowledge, and truth!
Monday, March 26, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Civil Unions to become legal in The Captain's Home state of Illinois
This bill has been approve by the Illinois Human House service committee, and will be voted by the full House very soon. The state legislature has many and is control by democrats, and there is a democratic Governor. So this Civil unions bill has a really good chance of becoming law, and giving same-sex couples rights the same as hetersexual couples have in civil marriage.
HB1826 guarantees many of the rights and responsibilities to persons in civil unions that are currently granted to persons in civil marriages. Among those rights are the ability to participate in healthcare visitation and decision making for one's partner, survivor benefits and the right to make disposition decisions about deceased partner's remains.
The bill also affirms religious institutions' right not to recognize such unions or to solemnize a civil union.
"While this bill does not provide for recognition of same-sex marriages in the State of Illinois, it does give gay couples legal recognition and many of the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois. "It is a step in the right direction for full equality in Illinois."
"Lambda Legal applauds the bill's authors for addressing some of the serious threats that same-sex couples face everyday when they can't get married. By not even offering the most basic protections, Illinois views same-sex couples, some together for decades, as strangers under the law. The way to correct this injustice is to treat all of us fairly and equally-by allowing committed same-sex couples to marry. But until we reach the goal of marriage equality, efforts such as House Bill 1826 help reduce the harms to loving families by offering some critical legal protections that help our state take better care of all our citizens."
Personally i'm glad to see the state of Illinois starting to uphold the principles of our U.S Constituion that everyone deserves rights, to be protected, benefits for their families, and to be equal as put forth by our U.S Constitution!
This is a paraphrase of Mrs. King support of Marriage Equality for the LGBT community.
Mrs. Cornetta Scott King said " Gay and Lesbian people have families. They deserve rights and protection through marriage or civil union. A marriage amendment will not protect traditional marriage at all! She's right it's clearly gay-bashing at it's finest. She saw through the smoke screen of bigotry, and called it out!
God bless her! A true pioneer for human rights, just like her husband. As a african-american myself i always wanted to meet this brave woman because of her courage we have gotten this far, but like Mrs.king said "there is still much work to be done, in eliminating bigotry, and discrimination".
The religious "wrong", and certain other individuals will not be happy with this.
Well like i said discrimnation can only last so long. I know some of them get pleasure out it, and that's too damn bad! This bill will become law, and it's a step to full equality! It's a new day in the state of Illinois!
HB1826 guarantees many of the rights and responsibilities to persons in civil unions that are currently granted to persons in civil marriages. Among those rights are the ability to participate in healthcare visitation and decision making for one's partner, survivor benefits and the right to make disposition decisions about deceased partner's remains.
The bill also affirms religious institutions' right not to recognize such unions or to solemnize a civil union.
"While this bill does not provide for recognition of same-sex marriages in the State of Illinois, it does give gay couples legal recognition and many of the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois. "It is a step in the right direction for full equality in Illinois."
"Lambda Legal applauds the bill's authors for addressing some of the serious threats that same-sex couples face everyday when they can't get married. By not even offering the most basic protections, Illinois views same-sex couples, some together for decades, as strangers under the law. The way to correct this injustice is to treat all of us fairly and equally-by allowing committed same-sex couples to marry. But until we reach the goal of marriage equality, efforts such as House Bill 1826 help reduce the harms to loving families by offering some critical legal protections that help our state take better care of all our citizens."
Personally i'm glad to see the state of Illinois starting to uphold the principles of our U.S Constituion that everyone deserves rights, to be protected, benefits for their families, and to be equal as put forth by our U.S Constitution!
This is a paraphrase of Mrs. King support of Marriage Equality for the LGBT community.
Mrs. Cornetta Scott King said " Gay and Lesbian people have families. They deserve rights and protection through marriage or civil union. A marriage amendment will not protect traditional marriage at all! She's right it's clearly gay-bashing at it's finest. She saw through the smoke screen of bigotry, and called it out!
God bless her! A true pioneer for human rights, just like her husband. As a african-american myself i always wanted to meet this brave woman because of her courage we have gotten this far, but like Mrs.king said "there is still much work to be done, in eliminating bigotry, and discrimination".
The religious "wrong", and certain other individuals will not be happy with this.
Well like i said discrimnation can only last so long. I know some of them get pleasure out it, and that's too damn bad! This bill will become law, and it's a step to full equality! It's a new day in the state of Illinois!
Montel: Homosexuaity--Is There a Cure?
This past monday, alan chambers made himself not look so good in his case. Montel read to him that his organization's policy say it can liberate a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to hetersexual. Alan say they can't do that, but his policy says it. Just like montel, i don't like someone is bullshitting me, and alan was doing that. Montel was piss off, and so was i. Alan contradit himself and was so inconsistent throughout the show. In his marriage with former lesbian wife, it took them 6-months to consumate their marriage. 6-months,6-months, now something wrong here. He claim it nothing to do with his sexual orientation that he knows he has not change. Now 6-months to consumate a marriage is not 100% hetersexual behavior. It's sad he's pushes himself in denial, but like he says it's his choice to try to be something else. Since alan claims exdous doesn't have the ability to change a homosexual to hetersexual, so technically him and his so-called are still homosexuals. They both are just supressing it, trying to prove and be the impossible. Montel was great, didn't take flawed answers, and just like everyone else wanted some solid and sound proof of a so-called liberation. MEMO: Do not be ignorant of your self. Stay true and you'll be you.
Montel: Homosexuaity--Is There a Cure? pt 2
This is a week long series of exploring and exploding the myth of homosexuality. Now it goes through the montel show. Peterson went through so-called demonic excorcisms. I already express information on that subject. But that sirely was not the problem. Still using false ancient conspiracies. He went through all that to figure out he must accept himself or continue to be miserable. Now he knows God loves him as he is!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Wayne Besen - Richard Cohen - 3/19/07
This is some funny stuff! Truth win out founder wayne besen was great on here, and made this cohen look like the joke he is. Richard Cohen claim it's an emotional condition. His concepts were old, flaw, and a joke. His wife looks like a vitnemese actress to prove he's straight, but he knows he's not. His concepts were proven to be flawed. He made his own self out of everyone's night time joke. Trying to prove something that just doesn't have any solid and sound proof!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Tomorrow Posts: Critics and Skeptics/ Ex-gay topic
Sorry everybody i've been busy with some important things.
Tomorrow i plan on responding to critics and skeptics.
My favorite and amusing critic the captain has ask some minor questions that i will address tomorrow evening.
I also plan to continue the discussion of the embarassment the ex-gay ministry has been receiving early this week on talk shows and media!
I might push for more topics to discuss tomorrow!
Thanks, Justice MH.
Tomorrow i plan on responding to critics and skeptics.
My favorite and amusing critic the captain has ask some minor questions that i will address tomorrow evening.
I also plan to continue the discussion of the embarassment the ex-gay ministry has been receiving early this week on talk shows and media!
I might push for more topics to discuss tomorrow!
Thanks, Justice MH.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Exploring and Exploding:"The Myths of Homosexuality" What does the Bible say?
Good Morning everybody on this Monday morning. Today, i will be discussing what does the bible say about homosexuality? I been wanted to write about this for a while! Anyway,so-called Christians love to quote from the bible to justify what they personal don't approve or like. But this isn't the first time people who claim to follow Christ have used this book[even though he never commanded one to form together as we know it]. The bible has been used unjustified against jews, women, children, blacks, and now LGBT people. You have to wonder is God bias against these group of people who is his/her creation? No, there is nothing divine about being bias, but humans are. Humans wrote the bible base on their history, experience, and perceptions of God.
There is no hebrew, greek, or abrambic word that equates to our english word homosexual or homsexuality. Remember the bible was written in these languages. This should end the argrument, but some quote six passages to express their prejudice.
Now there are six passages that supposely talk about homosexuality as we know it today, but that not the case. There is no credibal case against it, unless a person reads it to continue their prejudice.
Gen.1-3, the Adam and Eve story is weak and a poor argument. A male and female realtionship will obviously come into a ancient's mind in writing genesis. The book of Genesis is not about who should be with who, but in the author's mind in how the beginning started. However, it doesn't exclude same-sex realtionships. We don't think all other forms of realtionships are condemn like friendships, interracial, or even being single.
Gen.19:
This is the story of Sodom. In a nutshell, two angels visit Lot and he treats them to dinner and convinces them to stay the night. Outside a group of men gather asking to "know" the men staying with Lot—to "know" them in the "Biblical" sense. Lot discourages the crowd by offering his daughters, telling the men they can do whatever they want to them. The daughters are refused. A tense evening ensues where the angels strike the men outside the door blind and in the morning Lot and his family escape unharmed.
First, what is interpreted by conservative Christians as potential "homosexual" acts are not the worst "crimes" that occur that night. The fact that Lot offers his daughters to be gang-raped by a mob of violent men is abhorrent and supports the idea that God considers women to be of the same worth as farm animals, definitely of less value than two strangers who have stopped by for a visit. Remember, Lot was considered a righteous man, and the offering of his daughters for gang rape passes without Biblical comment, or the ruffling of angelic feathers.
That conservative Christians use this passage to condemn loving, consensual same-sex relationships while they remain virtually oblivious to the crime of offering one's daughters to be gang-raped by a violent mob speaks volumes about the upside-down world that harbors their priorities. Because this crime against humanity (women being, in my own mushy liberal-Christian point of view, part of humanity) is completely overlooked, conservative Christians miss the fact that these men would have raped women, or men. They weren't particular.
It is a distinct injustice that conservative Christians link the act of rape with sexual preference. The Pope, in addressing the rape of young boys by priests, suggests as a remedy a more stringent screening out of "homosexual" priests, ignoring the fact that many of these priests rape young girls in their charge, as well. Again we see the mistaken notion that the rape of a male is more serious and damaging than the rape of a female. The rapes of young women by priests are virtually ignored. Sexism is one explanation, another is that "homosexual rape" captures and titillates the conservative Christian imagination to a greater and more prurient degree than does the rape of a young girl. It's almost as if rape is what females are there for, so why make an issue of it? Every 60 seconds a woman is raped in the United States. Yet what captures the headlines? A priest raping a young boy.
The gender of a rape victim does not determine the sexual preference of the rapist. If that were the case we should disallow both homosexual and heterosexual men from becoming priests and ministers. Rapists are rapists, not because of their sexual preference, but because they rape. The linking of the act of rape with sexual preference leaves unassigned the sexual preference of the man of God that rapes both boys and girls and illustrates how lacking in merit this linking is.
The "Sin of Sodom" Accoding to God
"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Ezekiel 16:48-50
Sodomites
Verses in the Bible that refer to sodomites reflect an English translation of the Hebrew word qadesh, as in 1 Kings 15:12,
"And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."
1 Kings 15:12
"And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove."
2 Kings 23:7
The Hebrew term asherah is translated as for the grove in the latter verse. Asherah is described, in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, as "a Babylonian (Astarte)-Canaanite goddess (of fortune and happiness), the supposed consort of Baal, her images; a) the goddess, goddesses; b) her images; c) sacred trees or poles set up near an altar."
These verses have to do with idolatry, not homosexuality. Even Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines the term translated as sodomite as male temple prostitute. The qadeshim were the holy ones, devotees of the goddess Asherah. In Job 5:1 and 15:5 the qadosh are referred to, meaning sacred, holy, Holy One, saint, set apart. One must remember that there are no vowels in the original Hebrew, that these are added based on context and tradition. The qadosh could easily be the equivalent, in terms of holiness, to the qadesh.
The term sodomite was imposed upon this priestly, yet rival, class of men by translators with no compunction about correlating them to a completely unrelated event, the destruction of Sodom
I personally speaking for myself that the story of sodom and Gormorrah were teaching stories of some form.
"Part 2 is below"
There is no hebrew, greek, or abrambic word that equates to our english word homosexual or homsexuality. Remember the bible was written in these languages. This should end the argrument, but some quote six passages to express their prejudice.
Now there are six passages that supposely talk about homosexuality as we know it today, but that not the case. There is no credibal case against it, unless a person reads it to continue their prejudice.
Gen.1-3, the Adam and Eve story is weak and a poor argument. A male and female realtionship will obviously come into a ancient's mind in writing genesis. The book of Genesis is not about who should be with who, but in the author's mind in how the beginning started. However, it doesn't exclude same-sex realtionships. We don't think all other forms of realtionships are condemn like friendships, interracial, or even being single.
Gen.19:
This is the story of Sodom. In a nutshell, two angels visit Lot and he treats them to dinner and convinces them to stay the night. Outside a group of men gather asking to "know" the men staying with Lot—to "know" them in the "Biblical" sense. Lot discourages the crowd by offering his daughters, telling the men they can do whatever they want to them. The daughters are refused. A tense evening ensues where the angels strike the men outside the door blind and in the morning Lot and his family escape unharmed.
First, what is interpreted by conservative Christians as potential "homosexual" acts are not the worst "crimes" that occur that night. The fact that Lot offers his daughters to be gang-raped by a mob of violent men is abhorrent and supports the idea that God considers women to be of the same worth as farm animals, definitely of less value than two strangers who have stopped by for a visit. Remember, Lot was considered a righteous man, and the offering of his daughters for gang rape passes without Biblical comment, or the ruffling of angelic feathers.
That conservative Christians use this passage to condemn loving, consensual same-sex relationships while they remain virtually oblivious to the crime of offering one's daughters to be gang-raped by a violent mob speaks volumes about the upside-down world that harbors their priorities. Because this crime against humanity (women being, in my own mushy liberal-Christian point of view, part of humanity) is completely overlooked, conservative Christians miss the fact that these men would have raped women, or men. They weren't particular.
It is a distinct injustice that conservative Christians link the act of rape with sexual preference. The Pope, in addressing the rape of young boys by priests, suggests as a remedy a more stringent screening out of "homosexual" priests, ignoring the fact that many of these priests rape young girls in their charge, as well. Again we see the mistaken notion that the rape of a male is more serious and damaging than the rape of a female. The rapes of young women by priests are virtually ignored. Sexism is one explanation, another is that "homosexual rape" captures and titillates the conservative Christian imagination to a greater and more prurient degree than does the rape of a young girl. It's almost as if rape is what females are there for, so why make an issue of it? Every 60 seconds a woman is raped in the United States. Yet what captures the headlines? A priest raping a young boy.
The gender of a rape victim does not determine the sexual preference of the rapist. If that were the case we should disallow both homosexual and heterosexual men from becoming priests and ministers. Rapists are rapists, not because of their sexual preference, but because they rape. The linking of the act of rape with sexual preference leaves unassigned the sexual preference of the man of God that rapes both boys and girls and illustrates how lacking in merit this linking is.
The "Sin of Sodom" Accoding to God
"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Ezekiel 16:48-50
Sodomites
Verses in the Bible that refer to sodomites reflect an English translation of the Hebrew word qadesh, as in 1 Kings 15:12,
"And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."
1 Kings 15:12
"And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove."
2 Kings 23:7
The Hebrew term asherah is translated as for the grove in the latter verse. Asherah is described, in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, as "a Babylonian (Astarte)-Canaanite goddess (of fortune and happiness), the supposed consort of Baal, her images; a) the goddess, goddesses; b) her images; c) sacred trees or poles set up near an altar."
These verses have to do with idolatry, not homosexuality. Even Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines the term translated as sodomite as male temple prostitute. The qadeshim were the holy ones, devotees of the goddess Asherah. In Job 5:1 and 15:5 the qadosh are referred to, meaning sacred, holy, Holy One, saint, set apart. One must remember that there are no vowels in the original Hebrew, that these are added based on context and tradition. The qadosh could easily be the equivalent, in terms of holiness, to the qadesh.
The term sodomite was imposed upon this priestly, yet rival, class of men by translators with no compunction about correlating them to a completely unrelated event, the destruction of Sodom
I personally speaking for myself that the story of sodom and Gormorrah were teaching stories of some form.
"Part 2 is below"
Exploring and Exploding:"The Myths of Homosexuality" What does the Bible say? Pt.2
LEVITICUS 18:22 AND LEVITICUS 20:13
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 18:22
"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."
Leviticus 20:13
[note: Lesbians are not mention at all!]
Most conservative Christians I've come in contact with have little use for the First Testament: they use Isaiah to foretell the coming of Christ; Psalm 139 to condemn abortion (while conveniently omitting Psalm 137); Genesis to promote "intelligent design," the mythic story of creation formerly know as "creation science;" and selective passages of the law of Moses to condemn their victim du jour. Beyond that they believe that "Christ fulfilled the law," which explains why they have no problem flaunting the Levitical commands against eating at Red Lobster, shaving, or women wearing pants and men wearing pink or purple Ralph Lauren button-down oxfords, polo shirts, or two-tone pastel Belgian slippers with contrasting piping and tassels.
These two verse are only mention twice in the entire bible unlike the rest of the code. This Holiness code is given directly to the israelities, and not to the entire world population to follow. So why are Christians quoting from a ancient jewish laws? To justify their prejudice,ain't it obvious. Christ only quoted one verse from it " you shall love your neighbor as yourself"
Now the word abomination mean: 1,ritualy impure,2. foul thing,. There is nowhere where it means wrong, or every christan's favorite word sin. It's a relgious term.
One expalnation would be that they couldn't have intercourse with a male as like a woman because it would be mixing the sex, make it ritualy impure in a anceint israelite's mind. Now insrealite men could have oral sex. They could hug, cuddle, and kiss. But because of the Holiness code no intercourse it was ritualy impure. They were also trying to survive with their population with neighboring tribes looking to take the land that was for them.
If we are to take the Bible literally, however, we cannot do this. The author applied the Hebrew term shakab to the "thou shalt not lie with" sequence and mishkab to the "as with" woman sequence. Mishkab occurs 46 times in 44 verses, all in the books of Moses. Mishkab generally means "bed," as in Leviticus 15:4 when the scripture states if a man lies in a bed [mishkab] and a woman has bled on the sheets, he is unclean, or as in Numbers 31:17 where God commands that every woman who has been to "bed" [mishkab] with a man (and therefore might be carrying an "unborn baby") should be slain. Yada, yada, yada: all pretty self-explanatory.
Shakab occurs 213 times in 194 verses, so we have plenty of context from which to draw a closer definition of the term. I looked through each of these verses and found that in 101 instances shakab meant to go to bed, or to sleep, in the most innocuous sense. In 51 instances shakab means to "sleep with the fathers," not in any perverse Christian sex fantasy sense, but meaning that they died, as in the "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes" sense. In only one instance does shakab seem to refer to straight-forward vanilla marital sex: Leviticus 15:18, "When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening." Taking into account the rights husbands had then, and wives didn't, it may not be that vanilla. Read on.
Shakab Means "Rape"
In 52 instances (virtually all of the sexual instances) the term shakab is used to describe a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape. Consider the following examples:
"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie [shakab] with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father."
Genesis 19:32
Lot's daughters rape their father, at least that's his story, and he's sticking to it.
"And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien [shakab] with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us."
Genesis 26:10
Here Isaac tries to pass his wife, Rebekah, off as his sister. Rightly assuming that Rebekah would not have willingly had sex with any Philistine who offered, we can assume that among the Philistines it was considered a boys-will-be-boys type of issue to rape unmarried Jewish women. Even so the king, Abimelech, delivers an edict forbidding anyone to "molest" Isaac (again with the male rape thing), or his wife.
Previously, in Genesis 20, Abraham had practiced the same deceit with his wife, Sarah. Abimilech, thinking Sarah was Abraham's sister, kidnapped her, with the intention of raping her. He was forced by God to return her to Abraham, to whom he paid a fine.
Next, in Genesis 30, a conversation between two women,
"And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie [shakab] with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes."
Genesis 30:15
In this verse Rachel is trading sex for drugs, letting her sister sleep with Jacob, her husband, in exchange for mandrakes.
"And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay [shakab] with her, and defiled her."
Genesis 34:2
"That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie [shakab] with me, and I cried with a loud voice:"
Genesis 39:14
In this story Joseph, living as a trusted slave in the house of Potifer, is sexually harassed by Potifer's wife. She's after him to have sex with her and he'll have none of it. One day he ends up alone with her and when he realizes this he rushes to get out of the house only escaping by shedding his coat which she has hold of. When Potifer comes home she cries rape, claiming as evidence the coat he "left behind." Joseph is sent to prison.
"Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay [shakab] with her."
2 Samuel 13:14
"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished [shakab]."
Isaiah 13:16
"Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay [shakab] with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her."
Ezekiel 23:8
When "she" was young they "lay with her and bruised the breast of her virginity." They made this woman into a whore by raping her.
I argue that shekab in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination. The story of Sodom supports this interpretation. Remember that the attempted rape of the "men" in Lot's house is seen as a horrible crime, whereas the attempted rape of his daughters, or the rape of the concubine of Gibeah in Judges 19, passes without comment. Though the verses in Leviticus condemn the rape of a man, they say nothing about healthy, mutual, consensual relations between members of the same sex.
The affirmation of same-sex love in some form in the old testament as follows:
In Deuteronomy 13:6 it is written,
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers…"
This verse lists a man's relations in order of closeness, descending to ascending: brother, son or daughter, wife, friend which is as thine own soul. This suggests that the man in this society maintains a relationship with another man that is closer than that of his wife, a relationship which is as close "as thine own soul."
This relationship is echoed in 1 Samuel 18:1,
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
For the conservative Christian who can read "homosexual sex" into the key passages of Leviticus and NOT see the "homosexual" relationship in Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel, selective literalism has been elevated to a high art form. This art form, however, remains an art, and not a valid argument that the verses in Leviticus condemn homosexuality.
Part 3 next:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 18:22
"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."
Leviticus 20:13
[note: Lesbians are not mention at all!]
Most conservative Christians I've come in contact with have little use for the First Testament: they use Isaiah to foretell the coming of Christ; Psalm 139 to condemn abortion (while conveniently omitting Psalm 137); Genesis to promote "intelligent design," the mythic story of creation formerly know as "creation science;" and selective passages of the law of Moses to condemn their victim du jour. Beyond that they believe that "Christ fulfilled the law," which explains why they have no problem flaunting the Levitical commands against eating at Red Lobster, shaving, or women wearing pants and men wearing pink or purple Ralph Lauren button-down oxfords, polo shirts, or two-tone pastel Belgian slippers with contrasting piping and tassels.
These two verse are only mention twice in the entire bible unlike the rest of the code. This Holiness code is given directly to the israelities, and not to the entire world population to follow. So why are Christians quoting from a ancient jewish laws? To justify their prejudice,ain't it obvious. Christ only quoted one verse from it " you shall love your neighbor as yourself"
Now the word abomination mean: 1,ritualy impure,2. foul thing,. There is nowhere where it means wrong, or every christan's favorite word sin. It's a relgious term.
One expalnation would be that they couldn't have intercourse with a male as like a woman because it would be mixing the sex, make it ritualy impure in a anceint israelite's mind. Now insrealite men could have oral sex. They could hug, cuddle, and kiss. But because of the Holiness code no intercourse it was ritualy impure. They were also trying to survive with their population with neighboring tribes looking to take the land that was for them.
If we are to take the Bible literally, however, we cannot do this. The author applied the Hebrew term shakab to the "thou shalt not lie with" sequence and mishkab to the "as with" woman sequence. Mishkab occurs 46 times in 44 verses, all in the books of Moses. Mishkab generally means "bed," as in Leviticus 15:4 when the scripture states if a man lies in a bed [mishkab] and a woman has bled on the sheets, he is unclean, or as in Numbers 31:17 where God commands that every woman who has been to "bed" [mishkab] with a man (and therefore might be carrying an "unborn baby") should be slain. Yada, yada, yada: all pretty self-explanatory.
Shakab occurs 213 times in 194 verses, so we have plenty of context from which to draw a closer definition of the term. I looked through each of these verses and found that in 101 instances shakab meant to go to bed, or to sleep, in the most innocuous sense. In 51 instances shakab means to "sleep with the fathers," not in any perverse Christian sex fantasy sense, but meaning that they died, as in the "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes" sense. In only one instance does shakab seem to refer to straight-forward vanilla marital sex: Leviticus 15:18, "When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening." Taking into account the rights husbands had then, and wives didn't, it may not be that vanilla. Read on.
Shakab Means "Rape"
In 52 instances (virtually all of the sexual instances) the term shakab is used to describe a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape. Consider the following examples:
"Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie [shakab] with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father."
Genesis 19:32
Lot's daughters rape their father, at least that's his story, and he's sticking to it.
"And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien [shakab] with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us."
Genesis 26:10
Here Isaac tries to pass his wife, Rebekah, off as his sister. Rightly assuming that Rebekah would not have willingly had sex with any Philistine who offered, we can assume that among the Philistines it was considered a boys-will-be-boys type of issue to rape unmarried Jewish women. Even so the king, Abimelech, delivers an edict forbidding anyone to "molest" Isaac (again with the male rape thing), or his wife.
Previously, in Genesis 20, Abraham had practiced the same deceit with his wife, Sarah. Abimilech, thinking Sarah was Abraham's sister, kidnapped her, with the intention of raping her. He was forced by God to return her to Abraham, to whom he paid a fine.
Next, in Genesis 30, a conversation between two women,
"And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie [shakab] with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes."
Genesis 30:15
In this verse Rachel is trading sex for drugs, letting her sister sleep with Jacob, her husband, in exchange for mandrakes.
"And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay [shakab] with her, and defiled her."
Genesis 34:2
"That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie [shakab] with me, and I cried with a loud voice:"
Genesis 39:14
In this story Joseph, living as a trusted slave in the house of Potifer, is sexually harassed by Potifer's wife. She's after him to have sex with her and he'll have none of it. One day he ends up alone with her and when he realizes this he rushes to get out of the house only escaping by shedding his coat which she has hold of. When Potifer comes home she cries rape, claiming as evidence the coat he "left behind." Joseph is sent to prison.
"Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay [shakab] with her."
2 Samuel 13:14
"Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished [shakab]."
Isaiah 13:16
"Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay [shakab] with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her."
Ezekiel 23:8
When "she" was young they "lay with her and bruised the breast of her virginity." They made this woman into a whore by raping her.
I argue that shekab in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination. The story of Sodom supports this interpretation. Remember that the attempted rape of the "men" in Lot's house is seen as a horrible crime, whereas the attempted rape of his daughters, or the rape of the concubine of Gibeah in Judges 19, passes without comment. Though the verses in Leviticus condemn the rape of a man, they say nothing about healthy, mutual, consensual relations between members of the same sex.
The affirmation of same-sex love in some form in the old testament as follows:
In Deuteronomy 13:6 it is written,
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers…"
This verse lists a man's relations in order of closeness, descending to ascending: brother, son or daughter, wife, friend which is as thine own soul. This suggests that the man in this society maintains a relationship with another man that is closer than that of his wife, a relationship which is as close "as thine own soul."
This relationship is echoed in 1 Samuel 18:1,
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
For the conservative Christian who can read "homosexual sex" into the key passages of Leviticus and NOT see the "homosexual" relationship in Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel, selective literalism has been elevated to a high art form. This art form, however, remains an art, and not a valid argument that the verses in Leviticus condemn homosexuality.
Part 3 next:
Exploring and Exploding:"The Myths of Homosexuality" What does the Bible say? Pt.3
Conservative Christians would allow that to pass since its in the old testament. My critics would say surely paul talks about it with hope to sustian their prejudices.
Unlike Christ who was not so much concern what people do in their bedrooms, this sex obsess, and all his life single self-proclaim apostle loves to dictate about it. But claims to not want to put restrictions on you, how hypocritical of you paul?
Any way lets check out his letter to the Romans and see what it says:
ROMANS 1:26, 27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet."
This is the only "text of terror" that throws women into the mix. Even conservative Christians must admit that the key verses in Leviticus are written to and about men.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 18:22
It makes no sense that this verse be directed to women - a woman shall not lie with a man as a woman lies with a woman? See, it just doesn't have the same pseudo-logical ring to it. These verses were written to men, about men.
Lesbianism would be completely off the hook were it not for the misinterpretation of Romans 1:26. When taken in context the gist of this verse mutates considerably.
The whole natural concept is a scientific concept. Paul saw it as a charcteristic for
example: Even paul thinks God act Unnatuarally, in Roman 11:24 he says or describes this.
Romans 1 is similar to the chapters in Leviticus in the sense that Paul's chidings are sandwiched between admonitions against idolatry.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1:18-23
And ending with,
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient… Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Romans 1:28, 32
Wait, where's that part about the "lesbians"? Oh, this is verse 24, addressed presumably to members of the congregation who are not "homosexuals" or "lesbians," in other words "straight" people
If it is assumed that these verses refer to all same sex relations then one is left to explain "the natural use of the woman." What is "the natural use of woman?" Is it to make babies? What of women who cannot, or do not, make babies? Have these also changed their "natural use?" Is it therefore a sin for a woman not to have babies?
Is "the natural use of women" the extinguishment of the burning lust of men? Do women exist to quell the lust and violence of angry raping mobs? Do they exist to satiate the unfettered lust of men, whether willingly or not?
Or do women exist to love and be loved? If this is the answer then the verses here have nothing to do with homosexually but with the dishonoring of bodies whether male or female, straight or gay
Some bibical scholars agree that paul does not separate hetersexuals and homosexuals.
So it's not fully clear what he means. He critizes the gentiles to make the jews feels good about themselves, then critizes them later in the letter in Rom. 2.1.
1 TIMOTHY 1:9-10, 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9,10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
1 Timothy 1: 9,10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9,10
Again we have a situation where the verses are written specifically to, and about, men. How can a woman defile herself "with mankind" unless there is some sort of inequitable circumstance that is exploited? She can sell herself to a man, she can extort sex from a man, but these are not the definitions that conservative Christians assign to the phrase in 1 Timothy 6:9, "them that defile themselves with mankind." For conservative Christians this means the vividly imagined hot male-on-male action.
We have the same problem with 1 Corinthians 6:9, for do we prohibit women from being effeminate? No, we want women to be "feminate," or "feminine," which is the sloppy contemporary reading of this term. The Greek term is malakos. The term is used two times in the Gospels, Jesus speaking here,
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft [malakos] raiment? behold, they that wear soft [malakos] clothing are in kings' houses."
Matthew 11:8
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft [malakos] raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts."
Luke 7:25
In both instances the term malakos is used in a disdainful manner to describe the soft and delicate existence of those in the royal court.
If we are to assume that the entire Bible is written to both men and women, and not just to men, to later be passed down to their property, women, then we cannot accept that malakos means homosexual, or effeminate.
"Arsenokoites"
The phrase "for them that defile themselves with mankind" is translated from the Greek term arsenokoites. This term appears two times in two verses, those listed above. The definition of the term is not clear. It is constructed from two words, arrhen, or arsen, meaning a male, a man, a child, or a man child (boy); and koite, meaning bed. koite appears four times in four verses in the Second Testament:
"And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed [koite]; I cannot rise and give thee."
Luke 11:*
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived [koite] by one, even by our father Isaac;"
Romans 9:10
"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering [koite] and wantonness, not in strife and envying."
Romans 13:13
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed [koite] undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
Hebrew 13:4
The first verse suggests a bed, with no sexual connotations. The last three verses suggest a more sexual connotation, in a very heterosexual sense.
So it might seem that adding arseno to koites could mean hot male-on-male action as imagined by conservative Christians, or it could mean men who rape or exploit men, or men who rape boys. (Why should we assume that society would be any more interested back then in men that rape girls than it is now?) Taken with the immediately subsequent criminal "menstealers," this makes better sense. It makes better sense unless one is invested in the Bible being against hot male-on-male action as imagined by the conservative Christian, and not for justice, as in admonitions against the rape and kidnapping of men, boys, and perhaps, we might hope, at some future date, women.
My primary argument against using any of the previous verses, taken in context, to condemn loving same sex relations, is that this view ignores the actual sins of rape and sexual abuse for the specious payoff of gay bashing. One can hold onto this ideal, as if with a monkey's paw, only if one refuses to acknowledge the rape and exploitation of women as a sin against God, nature, and humanity. Therefore, Biblically-sanctioned gay bashing is a sin against all women, because women cannot enjoy the full protection of the law of God and man if she is seen as merely incidental to the stories used to condemn homosexuals, instead of as a valuable human being, a victim in violent and sinful human exploitation.
Unlike Christ who was not so much concern what people do in their bedrooms, this sex obsess, and all his life single self-proclaim apostle loves to dictate about it. But claims to not want to put restrictions on you, how hypocritical of you paul?
Any way lets check out his letter to the Romans and see what it says:
ROMANS 1:26, 27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 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 recompence of their error which was meet."
This is the only "text of terror" that throws women into the mix. Even conservative Christians must admit that the key verses in Leviticus are written to and about men.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 18:22
It makes no sense that this verse be directed to women - a woman shall not lie with a man as a woman lies with a woman? See, it just doesn't have the same pseudo-logical ring to it. These verses were written to men, about men.
Lesbianism would be completely off the hook were it not for the misinterpretation of Romans 1:26. When taken in context the gist of this verse mutates considerably.
The whole natural concept is a scientific concept. Paul saw it as a charcteristic for
example: Even paul thinks God act Unnatuarally, in Roman 11:24 he says or describes this.
Romans 1 is similar to the chapters in Leviticus in the sense that Paul's chidings are sandwiched between admonitions against idolatry.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1:18-23
And ending with,
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient… Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Romans 1:28, 32
Wait, where's that part about the "lesbians"? Oh, this is verse 24, addressed presumably to members of the congregation who are not "homosexuals" or "lesbians," in other words "straight" people
If it is assumed that these verses refer to all same sex relations then one is left to explain "the natural use of the woman." What is "the natural use of woman?" Is it to make babies? What of women who cannot, or do not, make babies? Have these also changed their "natural use?" Is it therefore a sin for a woman not to have babies?
Is "the natural use of women" the extinguishment of the burning lust of men? Do women exist to quell the lust and violence of angry raping mobs? Do they exist to satiate the unfettered lust of men, whether willingly or not?
Or do women exist to love and be loved? If this is the answer then the verses here have nothing to do with homosexually but with the dishonoring of bodies whether male or female, straight or gay
Some bibical scholars agree that paul does not separate hetersexuals and homosexuals.
So it's not fully clear what he means. He critizes the gentiles to make the jews feels good about themselves, then critizes them later in the letter in Rom. 2.1.
1 TIMOTHY 1:9-10, 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9,10
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
1 Timothy 1: 9,10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9,10
Again we have a situation where the verses are written specifically to, and about, men. How can a woman defile herself "with mankind" unless there is some sort of inequitable circumstance that is exploited? She can sell herself to a man, she can extort sex from a man, but these are not the definitions that conservative Christians assign to the phrase in 1 Timothy 6:9, "them that defile themselves with mankind." For conservative Christians this means the vividly imagined hot male-on-male action.
We have the same problem with 1 Corinthians 6:9, for do we prohibit women from being effeminate? No, we want women to be "feminate," or "feminine," which is the sloppy contemporary reading of this term. The Greek term is malakos. The term is used two times in the Gospels, Jesus speaking here,
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft [malakos] raiment? behold, they that wear soft [malakos] clothing are in kings' houses."
Matthew 11:8
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft [malakos] raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts."
Luke 7:25
In both instances the term malakos is used in a disdainful manner to describe the soft and delicate existence of those in the royal court.
If we are to assume that the entire Bible is written to both men and women, and not just to men, to later be passed down to their property, women, then we cannot accept that malakos means homosexual, or effeminate.
"Arsenokoites"
The phrase "for them that defile themselves with mankind" is translated from the Greek term arsenokoites. This term appears two times in two verses, those listed above. The definition of the term is not clear. It is constructed from two words, arrhen, or arsen, meaning a male, a man, a child, or a man child (boy); and koite, meaning bed. koite appears four times in four verses in the Second Testament:
"And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed [koite]; I cannot rise and give thee."
Luke 11:*
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived [koite] by one, even by our father Isaac;"
Romans 9:10
"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering [koite] and wantonness, not in strife and envying."
Romans 13:13
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed [koite] undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
Hebrew 13:4
The first verse suggests a bed, with no sexual connotations. The last three verses suggest a more sexual connotation, in a very heterosexual sense.
So it might seem that adding arseno to koites could mean hot male-on-male action as imagined by conservative Christians, or it could mean men who rape or exploit men, or men who rape boys. (Why should we assume that society would be any more interested back then in men that rape girls than it is now?) Taken with the immediately subsequent criminal "menstealers," this makes better sense. It makes better sense unless one is invested in the Bible being against hot male-on-male action as imagined by the conservative Christian, and not for justice, as in admonitions against the rape and kidnapping of men, boys, and perhaps, we might hope, at some future date, women.
My primary argument against using any of the previous verses, taken in context, to condemn loving same sex relations, is that this view ignores the actual sins of rape and sexual abuse for the specious payoff of gay bashing. One can hold onto this ideal, as if with a monkey's paw, only if one refuses to acknowledge the rape and exploitation of women as a sin against God, nature, and humanity. Therefore, Biblically-sanctioned gay bashing is a sin against all women, because women cannot enjoy the full protection of the law of God and man if she is seen as merely incidental to the stories used to condemn homosexuals, instead of as a valuable human being, a victim in violent and sinful human exploitation.
Exploring and Exploding:"The Myths of Homosexuality" What does the Bible say? Pt.4
JUDE 7 AND SUMMARY
I promised to address the "seven texts of terror" so I'll quickly address the last one, Jude 7.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
"Strange flesh" in this instance is translated from the Greek term heteros sarx, meaning "different flesh." If this doesn't mean angels then it must mean women, because a homo sexual doesn't "go after" hetero sex. Or, at least in the salaciously and selectively literal Biblical sense, it wouldn't be a sin if he did. Really quite silly.
A final argument used to justify the use of these verses to condemn homosexuality is, "What else could they mean if they don't condemn homosexuality?" What else, indeed? The Bible says we "see through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13), in other words we don't understand everything. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55.
We don't make the Bible true by filling in the blanks with our own prejudices. If we are to err, let us err on the side of mercy and justice.
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8
Afterword:
People who claim to follow Christ need to get over their prejudices, fears, and control issues. We all are made and reflect God's image. For those who hold on to their prejudices and fear, Christ would say:
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Matthew 15:9
This first half of this series is for those who have been spiritually, emotional, verbally, and physcially abuse. You heard man's voice, but not God's voice to have you feeling all of the above. This is to uplift you knowing God doesn't condemn you, no more damning but to uplift you!
I promised to address the "seven texts of terror" so I'll quickly address the last one, Jude 7.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
"Strange flesh" in this instance is translated from the Greek term heteros sarx, meaning "different flesh." If this doesn't mean angels then it must mean women, because a homo sexual doesn't "go after" hetero sex. Or, at least in the salaciously and selectively literal Biblical sense, it wouldn't be a sin if he did. Really quite silly.
A final argument used to justify the use of these verses to condemn homosexuality is, "What else could they mean if they don't condemn homosexuality?" What else, indeed? The Bible says we "see through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13), in other words we don't understand everything. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55.
We don't make the Bible true by filling in the blanks with our own prejudices. If we are to err, let us err on the side of mercy and justice.
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8
Afterword:
People who claim to follow Christ need to get over their prejudices, fears, and control issues. We all are made and reflect God's image. For those who hold on to their prejudices and fear, Christ would say:
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Matthew 15:9
This first half of this series is for those who have been spiritually, emotional, verbally, and physcially abuse. You heard man's voice, but not God's voice to have you feeling all of the above. This is to uplift you knowing God doesn't condemn you, no more damning but to uplift you!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Devil, Demons, and Evil Spirts Pt.2
This subject about demons and evil spirits is controversial to some.
However the concept was believed in a society that believe the world was flat,
and the sun revolves around the planet earth. i promise a part two, and with
some of my studies included in here:
Now first there a numerous accounts of Christ throwing out demons in the gospels, but they are greatly exaggerated. We must remeber this was written in a uneducated society. We are the educated.
In ancient India, where Christ travel through, several thousand of years before his birth, the whole concept of demons was invented. When people got sick they were though to be inhabited by evil spirits or demons. This type of belief is still prevalent in Africa, South American, New Guinea,Borneo and else where where primitive tribes still exist. The shaman or witch doctor will bring his or her potions and herbs and cast spells to eliminate the evil"demon" and cure the one who is sick.
I have always sad there are no demons and no devil and that so-called "possessions are either schizophrenia or the overactive and suggestive mind emotion in a big-time way. Under hypnosis, some people can actually manifest a blister when an ice cube is put on their arm or hand when told it is something very hot. The mind can be very powerful, especially in a person who is highly suggestive or mentally ill. The illness of epileptics can cause someone to think someone is "possess". At that time the judiac belief of evil spirits causing illness of some kind, which the writers of the bible exaggerated to be actual evil entities. It was simply illness of some kind.
Most scientist and scholars question the veracity of exorcisms, saying there is no scientific proof whatsoever for demonic posssession. Most of the evidence in this area, they said, points to psychological disturbances and mental illness. While most scientists and scholars say demonic possession does not exist. The early church used the fears and superstitious beliefs of the masses in demonic possession to advance their dogma of a devil and hell. Unfortunately, many christian churches today still have experts who handle exorcisms, especially the Catholic Church.
As i said the concept of demons and evil spirits possessing someone is not true, but a ancient fear and superstitious. I also want to say there is no homosexual demon or spirit, the things people come up with is laughable. It seems when we don't understand something it must have something to do with a spirit or demon, and that is not true either. People are way out of field with that one.
Now the exorcists movies are scary, and entertaining. However, there is no truth in that concept whatsoever.
However the concept was believed in a society that believe the world was flat,
and the sun revolves around the planet earth. i promise a part two, and with
some of my studies included in here:
Now first there a numerous accounts of Christ throwing out demons in the gospels, but they are greatly exaggerated. We must remeber this was written in a uneducated society. We are the educated.
In ancient India, where Christ travel through, several thousand of years before his birth, the whole concept of demons was invented. When people got sick they were though to be inhabited by evil spirits or demons. This type of belief is still prevalent in Africa, South American, New Guinea,Borneo and else where where primitive tribes still exist. The shaman or witch doctor will bring his or her potions and herbs and cast spells to eliminate the evil"demon" and cure the one who is sick.
I have always sad there are no demons and no devil and that so-called "possessions are either schizophrenia or the overactive and suggestive mind emotion in a big-time way. Under hypnosis, some people can actually manifest a blister when an ice cube is put on their arm or hand when told it is something very hot. The mind can be very powerful, especially in a person who is highly suggestive or mentally ill. The illness of epileptics can cause someone to think someone is "possess". At that time the judiac belief of evil spirits causing illness of some kind, which the writers of the bible exaggerated to be actual evil entities. It was simply illness of some kind.
Most scientist and scholars question the veracity of exorcisms, saying there is no scientific proof whatsoever for demonic posssession. Most of the evidence in this area, they said, points to psychological disturbances and mental illness. While most scientists and scholars say demonic possession does not exist. The early church used the fears and superstitious beliefs of the masses in demonic possession to advance their dogma of a devil and hell. Unfortunately, many christian churches today still have experts who handle exorcisms, especially the Catholic Church.
As i said the concept of demons and evil spirits possessing someone is not true, but a ancient fear and superstitious. I also want to say there is no homosexual demon or spirit, the things people come up with is laughable. It seems when we don't understand something it must have something to do with a spirit or demon, and that is not true either. People are way out of field with that one.
Now the exorcists movies are scary, and entertaining. However, there is no truth in that concept whatsoever.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Gay Rights vs. Civil Rights
I always hear about gay rights. First of all there is no such thing as a gay right. It is civil rights for the LGBT Community. This is the civil rights battle for the 21th century. I have never compared the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. I also have never compared the gay experience to the black experience. Both movements are different in their own way. For afican americans it was about race. For LGBT people its about sexual orientation, and being able to love the person they are inclined to love.
Coretta Scott King was a firm supporter for the civil rights of gays and lesbians, God bless her. She even said her husband Dr.king would have supported the civil rights of gays and lesbians. He was friends with a gay man who organize the the march on Washington 1963, named Bayard Rustin. I agree with Mrs. King, Dr. King was about inclusion, not exclusion.
It seems many african americans forget the Civil Rights movement was not just fill with black straights, but also black gays.
Currently right now there are three important bills being penned in Congress.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been very supportive of the LGBT movement for equality. The bills are EDNA, a new federal hate crimes law, and the repeal of DADT.
I think the EDNA bill has a good chance of passing. Now the federal hate crimes law and the repeal of Don't ask don't tell policy is possible. If President Bush doesn't veto. The President needs to do the right thing and help pass these bills.
The new hate crimes law will help protect americans based on race, religion, native orgin, and now sexual orientation. The critics claim it will affect them somehow. I feel you can continue your intolerate speech in the name of your personal beliefs, but this is about people's lives. To make sure every american is protected under the law. Recently a gay senior man was attacked in detriot with a metal pipe. A lesbian was attacked about a man or a group of them. Now where are the critics now about this? They can give a damn about these two hateful attacks. I feel this will possible pass and become law.
The EDNA bill is to end dicrimination in the workplace, and the majority of american agree, american should be protected base on their sexual orientation. This will pass without a doubt in my mind.
The repeal of don't ask, don't tell will be a fight, but it could happen. President Bush wants more troops, but fire troops base on their sexual orientation. The Captain made a comment on Keith Boykin's website about if homosexuals are accepted and their behavior how would that make america look? Well captain it will make America look strong, diverse, and with the best americans to protect our country. You and others are so obsess with behavior, and you say gay are perverted. I think the critcs are too damn perverted. It is possible DADT could be repeal this year, i hope.
Marriage equality will be a hard battle, but it will become a reality around the country. We started with Massachusetts having Marriage Equality. We have New Jersey, vermont, and i think oregon have civil union, but separate but equal never works. Like i said will be a battle to gain equal marriage.
American is the country where everyone should be equal, with rights, and proctected under the law.
Coretta Scott King was a firm supporter for the civil rights of gays and lesbians, God bless her. She even said her husband Dr.king would have supported the civil rights of gays and lesbians. He was friends with a gay man who organize the the march on Washington 1963, named Bayard Rustin. I agree with Mrs. King, Dr. King was about inclusion, not exclusion.
It seems many african americans forget the Civil Rights movement was not just fill with black straights, but also black gays.
Currently right now there are three important bills being penned in Congress.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been very supportive of the LGBT movement for equality. The bills are EDNA, a new federal hate crimes law, and the repeal of DADT.
I think the EDNA bill has a good chance of passing. Now the federal hate crimes law and the repeal of Don't ask don't tell policy is possible. If President Bush doesn't veto. The President needs to do the right thing and help pass these bills.
The new hate crimes law will help protect americans based on race, religion, native orgin, and now sexual orientation. The critics claim it will affect them somehow. I feel you can continue your intolerate speech in the name of your personal beliefs, but this is about people's lives. To make sure every american is protected under the law. Recently a gay senior man was attacked in detriot with a metal pipe. A lesbian was attacked about a man or a group of them. Now where are the critics now about this? They can give a damn about these two hateful attacks. I feel this will possible pass and become law.
The EDNA bill is to end dicrimination in the workplace, and the majority of american agree, american should be protected base on their sexual orientation. This will pass without a doubt in my mind.
The repeal of don't ask, don't tell will be a fight, but it could happen. President Bush wants more troops, but fire troops base on their sexual orientation. The Captain made a comment on Keith Boykin's website about if homosexuals are accepted and their behavior how would that make america look? Well captain it will make America look strong, diverse, and with the best americans to protect our country. You and others are so obsess with behavior, and you say gay are perverted. I think the critcs are too damn perverted. It is possible DADT could be repeal this year, i hope.
Marriage equality will be a hard battle, but it will become a reality around the country. We started with Massachusetts having Marriage Equality. We have New Jersey, vermont, and i think oregon have civil union, but separate but equal never works. Like i said will be a battle to gain equal marriage.
American is the country where everyone should be equal, with rights, and proctected under the law.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Not in my Family: Aids in the African-American Community
This book is a collection of essays by african-americans to break the silence on Hiv and Aids in the community. I hope many african americans have gotten the chance to read the book it's really good to hear everyone's perspective on this disease, and how it affect us as african-americans.
My favorite essay was done by Mo'Nique, it was real, and believe me she didn't hold back. I have a favorite quote from her essay " You better ask Somebody", and she right on this one.
"Our society says if you a girl, you gotta like a boy,and if you're a boy you gotta like a girl. And then it says that God said so. God ain't said that shit. Please show me in the bible where God said that. His name ain't signed nowhere. You can't show me that, I promise you can't. Some other niggas wrote it, and you're trying to convince me"_Mo'Nique.
I agree with Mo'Nique, God ain't said that shit. And don't even try to use the book of Genesis or etc. You know who i'm talking to lol. Most scholars already agree it's a weak and poor agrument.
This is a quote from Mo'Nique's You better ask Somebody essay. You'll have to buy the book to read the rest of it, and the other essays.
I always say we are made to be with somebody. We are made with hands to hold, eyes to look throught, mouths to kiss, and a body that fits into another. Relationships are relationships with gay or straight.
Like i said, she told it like it is, and i knew i like her for some reason.
My favorite essay was done by Mo'Nique, it was real, and believe me she didn't hold back. I have a favorite quote from her essay " You better ask Somebody", and she right on this one.
"Our society says if you a girl, you gotta like a boy,and if you're a boy you gotta like a girl. And then it says that God said so. God ain't said that shit. Please show me in the bible where God said that. His name ain't signed nowhere. You can't show me that, I promise you can't. Some other niggas wrote it, and you're trying to convince me"_Mo'Nique.
I agree with Mo'Nique, God ain't said that shit. And don't even try to use the book of Genesis or etc. You know who i'm talking to lol. Most scholars already agree it's a weak and poor agrument.
This is a quote from Mo'Nique's You better ask Somebody essay. You'll have to buy the book to read the rest of it, and the other essays.
I always say we are made to be with somebody. We are made with hands to hold, eyes to look throught, mouths to kiss, and a body that fits into another. Relationships are relationships with gay or straight.
Like i said, she told it like it is, and i knew i like her for some reason.
This Week: On Justice MH
The following post titles is what i will be writing on this week:
"Exploring and Exploding: The Myths of Homosexuality Series"
"Gay Rights vs. Civil Rights"
"Creatism vs. Evolution: The battle to be taught in schools"
"Born gay or straight vs. Born to be gay or straight"
"The Gay agenda"
Updated post on "Devils, demons, and spirits"
"The Church vs. Science"
"Masculine and Feminine"
"Not in my Family" Aids in the African American Community"
Short review by Justice MH. Edited by Gil L. Robertson IV
"The Power of Change"
My day-to-day about life and what we go through and etc.
I will also be taking part in Queer kid of Color's blogger event it will be interesting. It will be exclusively on his blog.
"Exploring and Exploding: The Myths of Homosexuality Series"
"Gay Rights vs. Civil Rights"
"Creatism vs. Evolution: The battle to be taught in schools"
"Born gay or straight vs. Born to be gay or straight"
"The Gay agenda"
Updated post on "Devils, demons, and spirits"
"The Church vs. Science"
"Masculine and Feminine"
"Not in my Family" Aids in the African American Community"
Short review by Justice MH. Edited by Gil L. Robertson IV
"The Power of Change"
My day-to-day about life and what we go through and etc.
I will also be taking part in Queer kid of Color's blogger event it will be interesting. It will be exclusively on his blog.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Serious Question!!!
In america we have the U.S Constitution to govern us, to be equal and fair to each other. We have some religious folks who believe that Constitution should be replace with the bible. Personally speaking for myself it will be the U.S Constitution, my beliefs and faith is personal. To have the bible govern the country is a conservative christian's wet dream. To people like me it's nightmare in america pun intented. Now come to reality, because the fact of the matter is, it will never happen, no contradicting book will not govern this country. This is not a theocracy, but a democracy. We need right thinking americans to protect the U.S Constitution for america to remain level-footing for all americans. No offense to anyone, but everyone has the right to their personal beliefs and views about God.
Now what do you think the bible or the U.S Constitution to govern our country?
Now what do you think the bible or the U.S Constitution to govern our country?
Friday, March 9, 2007
Bible Classes in Public Schools???
All i got to say is Hell NO!!! We don't need that coming into public schools. If some people want bible classes do it at home or go to church doing the week at night.
You see it's alright to say teaching yoga is unconstitional but when it comes to bible classes to some it's not to them. That is being a hypocritic. It seems conservative christians would stop at nothing to impose their agenda on america. When i hear them say religous freedom, it really means to impose my beliefs on you no matter what you believe or think. But thank God if approve it can't become mandatory, only an option if you want it. The American Government needs to uphold the constitution that governs this country not the bible. It makes sure everything is equal and fair here in america. With using the bible people become dictators, and what i like to call judgmentalists. For they fail to follow christ's teachings. They call themselves Christians and have the nerve to wear a braclet that says, "what would jesus do?" This country is an liberty and freedom country, and i don't believe the hype when some say this is a Christian nation. This was not our founding fathers' vision of a nation. The religious wrong are like predators, and every unaware american we are the prey. Separation of Church and state must be strengthen and remain strong because we have religious fascists on our hands and declaring war on our democracy, and our reputation as land of the free!
You see it's alright to say teaching yoga is unconstitional but when it comes to bible classes to some it's not to them. That is being a hypocritic. It seems conservative christians would stop at nothing to impose their agenda on america. When i hear them say religous freedom, it really means to impose my beliefs on you no matter what you believe or think. But thank God if approve it can't become mandatory, only an option if you want it. The American Government needs to uphold the constitution that governs this country not the bible. It makes sure everything is equal and fair here in america. With using the bible people become dictators, and what i like to call judgmentalists. For they fail to follow christ's teachings. They call themselves Christians and have the nerve to wear a braclet that says, "what would jesus do?" This country is an liberty and freedom country, and i don't believe the hype when some say this is a Christian nation. This was not our founding fathers' vision of a nation. The religious wrong are like predators, and every unaware american we are the prey. Separation of Church and state must be strengthen and remain strong because we have religious fascists on our hands and declaring war on our democracy, and our reputation as land of the free!
Nbjc: Black Church Summit weekend
I wish i can be there at the National Black Church Summit. This is to help black churches stop their church homophobia, and using the bible to hammer their own people. The same book that was used again them and every other minority. This has all been in the name of God. It does harm rather than good. I hope these summits help the black community.
It is said about 300 plus will be there in Philly. I hope it goes well.
It is said about 300 plus will be there in Philly. I hope it goes well.
The Effects of Hate Speech
Some people just don't understand how speaking negative of a group of harmless americans can do to their daily lives in this country. I was on my way home and heard someone from school i know say "he hates gay people". He mention Tim Hardaway, and i was saying to myself Hardaway is having an affect on someone, but in a negative way. He doen't realize that gays are all around him whether he like it or not.
If you don't like someone at least show respect,and move on. I was glad to hear another boy tell him "stop trying to be hard". I sat there and said to myself someone that speaks reason in the midst of ignorance. It always seem straight boys have to talk negative of gays to seem more masculine or manly among their peers. Its a learned behavior the way i see it, passed down especially in the black community. This one boy always seem like any lil thing that didn't make him seem manly enough made him complain about anything whether it's a feminine gay boy 10 feet away from him, or acting as a woman writer through a poem. I had to tell him it's just acting, and does not effect who you are, unless you know who you are.
As i say all the time this is America land of the free, free speech is yours, just as long as it does not endanger or incite violence against an harmless group of americans.
If you don't like someone at least show respect,and move on. I was glad to hear another boy tell him "stop trying to be hard". I sat there and said to myself someone that speaks reason in the midst of ignorance. It always seem straight boys have to talk negative of gays to seem more masculine or manly among their peers. Its a learned behavior the way i see it, passed down especially in the black community. This one boy always seem like any lil thing that didn't make him seem manly enough made him complain about anything whether it's a feminine gay boy 10 feet away from him, or acting as a woman writer through a poem. I had to tell him it's just acting, and does not effect who you are, unless you know who you are.
As i say all the time this is America land of the free, free speech is yours, just as long as it does not endanger or incite violence against an harmless group of americans.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Acting White Myth???
Why is that we as african-americans have put each other down with senseless concepts and myths? It seems african-americans still think that way with an educated black man like Barak Obama looking to make history as the first african amercian president. And yes Obama is black enough. Stop the ignorance! I personally don't believe or think in that senseless acting white myth. A black person can't read books, get an education, study, or work hard without being critize by their own people.
Do you belive in the "acting white myth"? If you do, then explain the myth?
Do you belive in the "acting white myth"? If you do, then explain the myth?
Free Speech Huh???
I always tell people i believe in free speech as long as it doesn't incite violence against a group of people. People need to understand words have power, and stop being apologists for these hateful people. I read where people are citing their favorite source to justified Tim Hardaways hate speech. I hear blacks saying Tim or even Isaiah Washington should not have to apologize. But when that Asian newspaper wrote an article about hating blacks, they was all on that. That is being hypocritical.Some think they only deserve apologies, but not the gay community. We as african-americans have to learn to respect one another.
At the Consevative conference, where Ann Coulter gave her ignorant speech, and called President hopeful John Edwards a faggot was uncalled for. Why can't people critize people without bringing the hateful slurs in. Ann Coulter claims she was joking, and didn't mean harm. The audience was laughing, and giggling like little school children. They should have showed their disapproval right then and there. I'm really not surprise to hear her say ignorant things about others. She called ex-president Bill Clinton a "total fag". She think it's cute, but it's not. Ann critizes the liberals, and left-wingers for being "Godless. But Ann Coulter thinks herself as God within her. God is within everyone. Free Speech is for everyone, but not to incite violence against a group of harmless americans.
At the Consevative conference, where Ann Coulter gave her ignorant speech, and called President hopeful John Edwards a faggot was uncalled for. Why can't people critize people without bringing the hateful slurs in. Ann Coulter claims she was joking, and didn't mean harm. The audience was laughing, and giggling like little school children. They should have showed their disapproval right then and there. I'm really not surprise to hear her say ignorant things about others. She called ex-president Bill Clinton a "total fag". She think it's cute, but it's not. Ann critizes the liberals, and left-wingers for being "Godless. But Ann Coulter thinks herself as God within her. God is within everyone. Free Speech is for everyone, but not to incite violence against a group of harmless americans.
Ring the Alarm: Ex-Gays want some attention on "Montel Show"
I heard that Ex-gay and Exodus president Alan Chambers is schedule to appear on the "Montel Williams Show".There will also be two ex-gays to give their so-called testimony about their supposely progress of overcoming themselves. It seems Montel needs some ratings, and maybe need to see how crazy this is.
Some gays[ie.bloggers] might not care to watch, but i could use a good laugh after a hard-working day of school. As always this should be interesting. I'm not sure when it will air.So if intersested, check your local cable provider or tv guide listings for the show.
Some gays[ie.bloggers] might not care to watch, but i could use a good laugh after a hard-working day of school. As always this should be interesting. I'm not sure when it will air.So if intersested, check your local cable provider or tv guide listings for the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
